[ Page 8139 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 8139

Ministerial Statement

Court Order Enforcement Act. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8140

Mr. Sihota

Oral Questions

Carmanah Valley park study. Mr. G. Janssen –– 8141

Comox Valley transmission line. Ms. Edwards –– 8141

Logging in Stein Valley. Mr. Cashore –– 8141

Sterile insect release program. Mr. Barlee –– 8142

AIDS Needle-exchange program. Ms. Marzari 8142

Prosecution of Petro-Canada for Millstream Creek oil spill. Mr. Sihota –– 8142

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8143

Sale of New Westminster property. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 8143

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8143

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Edwards

Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 59).

Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 8170

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989 (Bill 52). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Ree) –– 8170

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Davidson

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

School Act (Bill 67). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8177

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Cashore

Hon. S.D. Smith

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on the floor of the House today we have Mr. John Murray and Mr. Phillip Smiles, who are members of the Parliament and of the Public Accounts Committee for the Parliament of New South Wales. They are accompanied by Mr. John Horder, who is the clerk of the Public Accounts Committee of New South Wales. They are visiting us in an effort to broaden their education with respect to Canadian public accounts committees, and they are engaging in a series of meetings with the chairman and deputy chairman of the British Columbia Public Accounts Committee as well as the auditor-general and the comptroller-general. These gentlemen are en route to Edmonton to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. Would members please make them most welcome.

MS. MARZARI: As the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee here in British Columbia, I similarly would like to welcome Mr. Smiles, Mr. Murray and Mr. Horder. I had the privilege of meeting these gentlemen this morning in the time slot which would have been given to the Public Accounts Committee for the final drafting of our final report this year. However, for lack of quorum the committee did not meet, and I am hoping that when the committee does meet to perform and pull together its final report, I can send it on to these gentlemen so that they will be able to talk in Australia about what a good Public Accounts Committee we have in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: In the members' gallery I have some special guests I'd like the House to recognize. Guests of the House today are Mr. Philip Gertson and his wife Rosella and their guests Mr. Marcos Esquivel and his wife Christina from Costa Rica. Also in the members' gallery, from White Rock, are Don and Elinor Wiltse and Les and Shirley Dahlgren. Would this House make these people a special welcome.

MR. BARLEE: In the House today are Mr. Tom Johnston and Mr. Jack Edie, both of Summerland, who are down here on a business trip concerning the future of the ALR lands. They come from my historic riding of Boundary-Similkameen. Would the House accord them a warm welcome, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We have two members on our side of the House today who are celebrating birthdays. I'd like the House to join me in wishing them both a very happy day. There is a slight difference in their ages. One is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), and the other is the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

MR. SIHOTA: It's always a pleasure to welcome a good friend to the Legislature, and it's certainly a privilege for us on this side of the House to welcome Mr. Paul Gill and his wife from Vancouver to the buildings and wish them well in their visit to Victoria. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. BRUCE: I rise today not to make an introduction, but on a somber note with respect to the passing of a gentleman who I consider to be a great Canadian. He was an elder of the Cowichan Indian band; his name is Abel Joe. I can remember Abel, for many years, having grown up in the community. I knew Abel as a very wise and, I thought, compassionate man. He was not a tall man — physically that is — but he stood tall and was truly proud to be an Indian. He worked long and hard in preserving — and educating people about — the Indian culture, and he was a leader in our community in the development of the great performance, the Indian opera Tzinquaw.

I suppose you could say that as man he could sing like a bird, and if you looked at him and knew of him, the type of bird you would think of was not so much a robin or a sparrow, but more of an eagle, in the strength that he had as a man. He is truly a great loss to the Cowichan people, to our community, to our province and indeed to our country. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a message of condolence be sent by this House to the Cowichan people.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to echo the sentiments offered by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. A number of us had the privilege and pleasure of knowing Abel Joe. We know he was a fine man and an embodiment of all that most of us hold to be important and significant in one's public duties. His cause and his fight for social justice is well known to all of us, and we will miss him. Sadly we will not see his like again.

Introduction of Bills

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm most pleased to bring before this House a bill that establishes a program for government investment in strategic infrastructure in the province. The Strategic Infrastructure Development Fund Act establishes a mechanism for funding infrastructure which is of a long-term regional or provincial benefit for which funding is not available within any existing programs.

The bill will help in achieving two key objectives, namely: (1) to encourage and facilitate new industries so that the development potential of all regions can be more fully realized; and (2) to provide more British Columbians in rural or remote areas with

[ Page 8140 ]

access to services already available in other regions of the province.

This bill responds to the long-term development needs of the regions, and this bill represents another step in advancing our highly successfully regional development initiative. I look forward to further discussion of the bill with members during second reading.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH: I wish to make a report to the House by way of a ministerial statement. I wish to report to the Legislature today that cabinet approved this date orders-in-council designating the state of Washington and nine Australian jurisdictions as reciprocating states for the purpose of our Court Order Enforcement Act.

This means that where a court orders money to be paid in civil proceedings in one location, the holder of that judgment will be able to apply to register it with the appropriate court in the reciprocating location. When registered, the judgment will be treated as though it has been granted and enforced by a British Columbia court. This order will now give British Columbia reciprocal civil law arrangements with 15 foreign jurisdictions as well as ten other Canadian civil jurisdictions. Reciprocal arrangements such as these effectively extend the reach of British Columbia law far beyond our borders.

In making these arrangements we extend the law's protection for all British Columbians. This government has now declared 57 jurisdictions throughout the world to be reciprocating states for the purpose of enforcing family maintenance orders. The Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has urged me to expand these arrangements in order to help women particularly when enforcing their court orders. We have done this where we have been satisfied that a similar local mechanism is or will be in place for enforcing British Columbia maintenance orders.

Today there are influences which speak to the urgency of adopting the same dynamic approach to the development of reciprocal arrangements covering civil court judgments as we have done in the area of family law. One such influence concerns environmental protection, and the Environment minister (Hon Mr. Strachan) has been a major catalyst for moving this process along. When the environment is damaged in one part of the world, we all suffer. Air and water don't recognize borders. Polluters will have fewer places to hide if we enhance this reciprocity arrangement in the enforcement of our court orders. Such reciprocal arrangements also mean that judgments arising from commercial contracts will be enforceable across many jurisdictions.

[2:15]

This government is committed to the principles of freer trade and the expansion of links with our existing trading partners throughout the world. We are also committed to forging trade relations with new international partners, especially those along the Pacific Rim, be they neighbours to the west or to the south. In expanding our trade links we must ensure that decisions arising out of trade agreements and other contracts are enforceable in both the courts of British Columbia and those of our trading partners. To this end I intend to actively promote expanding these reciprocal arrangements with many more jurisdictions. Next week I will be discussing expansion of these arrangements at a meeting of Canadian and American attorneys-general.

We are ensuring that British Columbia builds the legal framework to compete and prosper in our rapidly changing world economy by providing a simple process for cross-boundary dispute resolution as we develop a world-integrated and sustainable economy here in British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: We received notice of this matter about three minutes before the minister made his statement. I want to make several comments in relation to this. Reciprocal enforcement of court orders is nothing new. We've known them to exist in this province for some time and have entered into these types of engagements in other provinces for literally dozens of years. Often these things are done through order-in-council or statutory amendment; seldom are they done through ministerial statement. It seems peculiar that the Attorney-General — who one can describe as a Premier with training wheels — is using this venue to raise this very issue.

The minister mentioned two areas that I want to comment on in particular: women and the environment. The problem with respect to women on this type of issue is not so much with the enforcement of court orders in foreign jurisdictions; that is indeed a problem. But the critical problem is the conflict that occurs from different orders from different jurisdictions — in other words, one order from the United States and one in British Columbia — and the inability to reconcile which of those two orders has paramountcy.

The thing that needs to be established with respect to maintenance is to attempt to develop a uniform way of determining which of the orders is to be paramount. This is the problem that the government should be working on, quite frankly, on the international scene.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I take some offence to the Premier's comment that this is sad. I don't want to get into that. I think it's a very important issue, and he obviously doesn't appreciate its magnitude. Perhaps if he spent some time practising in this area, as I have, he would realize to what extent it's a problem.

The second area that the minister talked about in his statement deals with the enforcement of orders

[ Page 8141 ]

coming from environmental prosecution. That raises two issues. First of all, this province has neglected proceeding with prosecution and securing judgments on environmental pollution. The province needs to do its job here in prosecuting environmental matters and then proceeding with the enforcement of orders.

The second problem, which relates to the environment and in my view is critical, rises from the west coast oil spill. We are still awaiting from the Attorney-General, and from this government, commencement of action in the United States for damages caused to our beaches, to our small businesses and to our tourist operators on the west coast of Vancouver Island from that oil spill, which was caused by negligence on the part of American authorities. What we look for from this side of the House is initiative by this government to sue those responsible for the economic damage inflicted to our west coast. That is what I was hoping we would see in an announcement from the government on the environment.

Oral Questions

CARMANAH VALLEY PARK STUDY

MR. G. JANSSEN: For the Minister Responsible for Parks. During the minister's estimates he told this House that his staff was undertaking an analysis of park options for the Carmanah Valley. Can the minister tell this House whether this report has been completed or what his recommendations are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Member, for the question. We will be having some discussions in cabinet on this issue. I mentioned at the time that I would express the Parks ministry point of view in cabinet, and that's where I'll be doing it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure this House that no decision will be made on the Carmanah until the recommendations of his staff analysis have been released?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: No.

COMOX VALLEY TRANSMISSION LINE

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the minister as Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast. The residents of the Comox Valley have complained about the possible health effects of a high-voltage power line through the region, and the Utilities Commission has put a stop to construction and ordered a hearing into the possible health hazards for those people. What specific steps has the minister taken to safeguard the health of Comox Valley residents?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We have brought that concern forward, and it's presently before the commission.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary to the same minister. What steps has the minister contemplated and what steps would he take to ensure the process for their input into this beyond such time as the commission has its hearings?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We'll be waiting for the commission report, and then there will be equal access to the report.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary to this, since the minister of state seems to be waiting for something else to happen, has the Minister of Health done something to assess the health hazards of this high voltage line?

HON. MR. DUECK: It being my birthday today, I think they should be kind and not ask questions, at least on this particular day. However, since the question was asked, from time to time we do a health study when requested. I am not aware of one on that particular issue. If you would like, I will take that on notice, follow through and perhaps get you an answer in the near future.

LOGGING IN STEIN VALLEY

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs: does the minister support the Wilderness Advisory Committee's recommendation that a road should not be constructed through the Stein River canyon and that logging should not commence without a formal agreement between the Lytton Indian band and the provincial government?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think that's a question that would be much more appropriate for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker).

MR. CASHORE: With all due respect, I think it's a question that's most appropriate for the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs in this province. In keeping with his responsibility, I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to continue, in good faith, negotiations with the Lytton and Mount Currie Indian bands, as promised in a recent letter to those bands.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Obviously the member has confused the titles on the letterhead he has been copied with. I have not written to the Mount Lytton band or to the Wilderness Advisory Committee. I think, if you will follow the issue, you will find that all of the negotiations have been between the Minister of Forests, on behalf of the province, and the various parties.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate, then, his position on this issue? Where does he stand on this issue with regard to the Indian bands?

[ Page 8142 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The Minister of Forests will continue to negotiate on behalf of the province.

MR. CASHORE: Then I take it that the minister is saying he has no responsibility whatsoever for ensuring that the interests of these two Indian bands are looked after with regard to these negotiations. Is that what this minister is saying?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, Mr. Speaker.

STERILE INSECT RELEASE PROGRAM

MR. BARLEE: This is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it's fairly important. I think at least six or seven members of the House will understand it, including myself.

During estimates I asked the minister whether the SIR program is going to be implemented during this session. The SIR program happens to be the sterile insect release program, which means they release a number of sterile codling moths out into the female population. The result is very few little codling moths. The minister informed me that he was aware of the importance of this program. It was tried ten years ago, and it worked. The minister said to write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I did that, did not get an answer, and have not got an answer from you.

Is this program going to go ahead? It's badly needed in the Okanagan. I await the minister's response.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure to respond to my critic. As you know, this government leads in agriculture; we do an exceptional job. In fact, I did exactly what you said I did: I discussed it with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It was brought to the cabinet table and is under consideration for legislation in this session. That's a positive action by a positive government.

MR. BARLEE: A supplementary to the minister. If you were doing so well, the orchardists in the Okanagan wouldn't want to pull 4, 000 acres out of the ALR, which they are about to do. This will help them, and consideration really isn't good enough. What is required is action now, this year; otherwise, it's delayed one more year.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I thought I made the point pretty clearly that it was considered for legislation and we will take the appropriate action.

AIDS NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAM

MS. MARZARI: A question for the Minister of Health, the birthday boy. The federal government has recently announced that it will provide 50-cent dollars for the costs of a needle-exchange program for intravenous drug users to prevent AIDS. Have you decided to participate in that program which could be very cost-effective for this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I received the letter late last night. I have not yet had time to consider it. When that has been done and discussions have taken place with my officials, we will then have an answer for you.

PROSECUTION OF PETRO-CANADA
FOR MILLSTREAM CREEK OIL SPILL

MR. SIHOTA: During his estimates the Attorney-General was asked about prosecution of Petro-Canada, which had spilled a considerable amount of oil into Millstream Creek in the Western Communities. At that time he said that action would be taken within a week. It has now been two months. Could the minister explain why no prosecution has been taken against this environmental polluter?

[2:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, what I said during my estimates is that a decision on prosecution would be taken within the next two weeks, and in fact that decision has been taken.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister explain why, in light of all of this government's propaganda about being tough with polluters and in the face of all of that kind of rhetoric, the government has not proceeded with prosecution of Petro-Canada in this case?

HON. S.D. SMITH: One of the important elements of our justice system which seems to have escaped the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is that decisions about prosecutions ought not to be taken in a political arena. They ought to be taken by the individuals who are charged with the responsibility of making a decision based on evidence, circumstances and facts. Those individuals are in the Ministry of Attorney-General's Crown counsel office. They will make their decision on this issue, as they have on all others, based on two profound and important principles: (1) what is the likelihood of conviction; and (2) is the prosecution in the public interest. Those are the principles upon which all of those decisions are taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this member has on a number of occasions in this House and outside the House invited me to inject myself into the administration of justice by making political decisions. I want to tell this House that I will not accede to that kind of an attitude about the administration of justice in this province. There is no place for political interference in the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia. I would further ask that member to reflect upon his attitudes in that regard. Before he causes further public embarrassment to his law professors at the University of Victoria, I would ask him to take a refresher course in ethics and criminal procedure.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't need to invite the Attorney-General to make political

[ Page 8143 ]

decisions; he's quite capable of doing that himself and does it with great regularity.

This is a question that deals with the administration within his own department; he knows that as well as I do. Perhaps he can avoid the cheap shots and deal with the issue. Will the minister confirm that the reason the government has not proceeded with prosecution of this oil spill here on Vancouver Island is because your environmental legislation is so weak that you know full well you cannot secure a prosecution? Will you confirm that, Mr. Minister?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the response to that rather flaccid rejoinder to the earlier weak question is no.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister given approval to the Vancouver city council to roll back to a more manageable figure the increases of 100 percent, 200 percent and 300 percent that have been experienced by small business people in the city of Vancouver? Has that approval been given to the city council by his ministry?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: After meeting with the citizens who had this tax problem as a consequence of local government decisions, the government did present to the city of Vancouver two options that would assist the city in dealing with that issue, which is basically — I remind the House again — an issue of who pays what proportion of local government services: in other words, a tax distribution problem. The government did provide two alternatives. The city council chose one of them, and my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the government signed an order-in-council yesterday to facilitate the city's rolling back the due date for property taxes, and which contains a provision whereby penalties and interest could be forgiven for the rollback period.

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like to respond to a question taken on notice, directed to me yesterday by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on all members of this assembly to act and speak responsibly when dealing with matters of public interest. Members are doing a disservice to the investment community and our valued civil servants in making unfounded, poorly researched allegations.

The latest statements show that the first member for Vancouver East has become nothing more than a media-manipulating myth monger. His innuendoes amount to a vicious, underhanded attack on honest civil servants and reputable investors. This is the third occasion in the past two months that the member has been shown to play fast with the facts and to misinterpret them for cheap political headlines. If that member has any respect for this House, any consideration for giving straight answers to the people and any basic human decency, he will withdraw his unsubstantiated accusations and humbly apologize for this latest headline-grabbing outburst. The press conference that this member held yesterday was not a spur-of-the-moment intuition; it was planned in advance and, indeed, was given widespread publicity in the media throughout the weekend.

In examining the facts, the member has failed in his research efforts. I might add that I did not receive a copy of the member's press release until well after question period yesterday, and the only way I was able to get one was with the cooperation of the press. My staff contacted the office of the first member for Vancouver East for a copy, and we were refused. Had he taken the time to simply ask me for the facts, I would have gladly provided them in a timely manner and saved him the embarrassment he has suffered.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, last night when we adjourned I was on a point of order with the junior member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who didn't seem to understand the jurisdiction of the Canadian Coast Guard. It's passing strange. I found out today that there are 1,177 Coast Guard personnel in B.C. and 603 alone on the Island. It's interesting for a Vancouver Island MLA not to understand that.

I did want to discuss the issue of oil spills, which is where we left off last night. I was discussing the oil spill response team. I thought I'd take some time and advise the committee now, as they seemed to show some interest last night in that response team. As I said last evening, there are two of them: one located in the northern part of the province and one located in the southern part of the province. In charge for the northern part of the province is Ron Driedger, who is based in Prince George; and Lanny Hubbard is based in Victoria for the southern part.

The team managers are laid out as follows, and I'll just explain the organization to you. There's what we call an incident commander — on the north coast, as I said, Ron Driedger. I'll just go through the north coast team. The deputy is Terry Roberts. A lad by the name of Bob Williams assists the incident commander. Then there's the manager of the provincial emergency program, there's a manager for environmental surveillance; there's a manager of cleanup;

[ Page 8144 ]

there's a manager of administration and a manager of field support. Also on the team are specialists, including wildlife, fisheries and assessment officers; there are supervisors of the cleanup teams, supervisors of the disposal team and a supervisor of wildlife rehab, who's a representative of the SPCA. And then there's an administrative assistant.

Just to define some of the duties of the team: the incident commander has the responsibility to organize all the B.C. staff and resources assigned to respond to the oil-spill task at hand, to implement response actions to mitigate the impact of the oil spill on the environment and to integrate field-response actions with the Canadian Coast Guard, the provincial emergency program and other responsible parties as well as communications with the media.

The deputy coordinates response-team strategy and decision-making meetings, ensures complete record and rationale for all team decisions, communicates with the team managers on behalf of the incident leader where required, and assists and acts for the incident commander as required.

There is a media officer, and of course those duties are self-explanatory with the title.

There is the provincial emergency program personnel. Their job is to supervise staff and the acquisition of equipment, supplies and services — transportation, communications, accommodations, food, equipment and supplies, clothing, first aid and safety — and to arrange for other services as may be required for the incident team.

Then there are the duties and responsibilities of the surveillance team. Their job is to initiate and coordinate impact assessments, prioritize biological and other resource protection and cleanup requirements, plan strategies related to proposed protection and cleanup actions, survey and evaluate impacts and cleanup activities, and undertake other assignments as directed by the officer in charge — in effect, liaison with other agencies in the collection and evaluation of field information and in the development of response strategies.

There is the wildlife rehab supervisor. That position is to establish facilities and direct personnel to receive, rehabilitate and care for a variety of birds and animals and provide assistance and advice in the collection and transport of oiled wildlife to cleanup stations.

There is the supervisor of the disposal team. This team identifies collection points and arranges for transport of oily debris, establishes oiled debris holding and transfer facilities, arranges for the disposal of oily debris, and interfaces with federal, provincial, municipal and industry representatives as required.

You can appreciate that in the case of the Grays Harbor cleanup, we did deal with the municipal officials in terms of some of the burning of the debris and latterly with people who had industrial incinerators to take care of that problem.

Then there is the manager of cleanup operations. That person's responsibility is to organize teams to undertake beach cleanup, to collect and dispose of oily debris and affected wildlife, to ensure safety for all persons employed in cleanup operations, to effect liaison with other task force managers as necessary to facilitate efficient operations, to advise and recommend priorities for cleanup operations, to assist in the development of response strategy and its implementation, and to undertake other assignments as requested.

[2:45]

There is the supervisor of cleanup teams, who organizes staff and volunteers to undertake cleanup action at assigned areas, ensures the safety of all team members while in the field and traveling to and from field assignments, assists others as necessary in the collection, transport and disposal of oily debris, reports on activities and recommends improvement to cleanup actions.

That essentially is the team that we put in place. As I said earlier to the committee, Mr. Chairman, we have two of those response teams in place now. They have both undergone simulated actions, one on Vancouver Island, the other in the Queen Charlottes. We believe it's a well-rounded response team, and it certainly has the technical capacity and the ability in terms of the staff we have posted to these teams to handle all the duties required.

I am sure members will find that interesting; I noticed some interest last night. As I said, we have had interest expressed by the government of Alaska, and as I advised the committee last night as it became known to me, the government of Norway has also indicated an interest in looking at the schematic that we put in place and understanding the way we have constructed our response team and assigned their various duties to them. So I think that in that sense we can see that the British Columbia reaction to the events of January and then later to the events at Easter time has been to really put leadership in place and design strategies that will enable us to better react if those regrettable incidents, God forbid, ever recur.

While we're on the subject of oil spills, a question was posed earlier today on another matter, but I will deal with it now because it does have an impact on the Ministry of Environment. That was a question regarding judgments. I can advise the committee, with respect to the Attorney's OIC, that the Ministry of Environment can sue for judgments in B.C. and have them enforced in Washington, or vice versa. That is the effect of the OIC that was brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly today. Of course, it does have impact on the Ministry of Environment, so I wanted to make that point.

MR. SIHOTA: You could do that before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't know if I could. Given the advice we've heard from you lately, I'm suspicious of that. I would rather go with the advice of our Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith).

Interjection.

[ Page 8145 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'll have a chance to speak.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't even know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Simmer down. Just relax. It's okay. You'll get your chance to stand up at your little microphone and do your thing. Okay. Just relax. Take it easy.

I'll repeat that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I see. You're right, and the Attorney-General of British Columbia is wrong.

Anyway, this means that with respect to oil spill judgments, we can sue in British Columbia and enforce in Washington. If we didn't have that ability, then suing in B.C. would have no impact on any other jurisdiction. But according to the information given to me from the Attorney-General of British Columbia, we do have that capacity now, and that's what we needed.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I welcome more questions on the issue of oil spill response or any other issues that come under the purview of the Ministry of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Minister of Tourism asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: On behalf of the Premier, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce a friend of the Premier and mine. Visiting from Milestone, Saskatchewan, we have in the members' gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Ed Bohn. Would the House give them a very special welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for that statement. At the beginning of his remarks there was some chatter going on, and I couldn't get it quite clear with regard to this team and the 1,177 employees — 603 on the Island. Are those employees of the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia, or are they employees of the Coast Guard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was for the benefit of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who didn't understand federal jurisdiction.

They are members of the Canadian Coast Guard. The personnel complement in British Columbia of the Canadian Coast Guard takes the lead in oil spill response in Canada — on the Pacific coast, as on the Arctic coast and the Atlantic coast. In any event, their presence in B.C. is 1,177 personnel; the Vancouver Island complement is 603. I have a bracketed note here: 471 are permanent employees. Obviously the Canadian Coast Guard has a large number of part-time employees. As a matter of fact, I think Dave LeBlanc is one of them, if I'm not mistaken. I think he told us in Tofino that he is a part-time employee of the Canadian Coast Guard. So that would explain the difference in the numbers.

But to repeat and answer the member's question: that's Canadian Coast Guard personnel — the federal agency. There are 1,177 in B.C.; 603 employees on Vancouver Island, of whom 471 are permanent.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you for that answer, Mr. Minister. I would assume from what the minister has said that of those 1, 177 employees, some of them are part-time casual employees. Is that correct? Perhaps a nod of the head....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can only recite the numbers that have been given to me, and also point out from personal experience that I know that Dave LeBlanc, who did yeoman's volunteer work at Tofino, is also.... I think he categorized himself as a part-time employee of the Canadian Coast Guard. So that would be the only example I know. But I suspect that he would be typical of the part-time employees.

MR. CASHORE: We can take it, then, that that is not a contingent of full-time employees, but they are employees of the Canadian Coast Guard. Mr. Chairman, when we concluded last night, the minister was making a point that it was inappropriate for my colleague to talk about the Coast Guard, and the minister has talked about the Coast Guard for the last ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I believe that both the minister and my colleague are correct in talking about the Coast Guard, because the minister brought the Coast Guard into this discussion early on in the oil spill fiasco. He was being questioned on CBC one morning on the early morning program, and it was being asked of him: "Why have you been taking so long to act?" He said: "It's the responsibility of the Coast Guard. They have the lead role in this. Just tell us what to do. We're prepared to follow."

Mr. Chairman, the minister himself brought the Coast Guard into this discussion. Obviously, in order to discuss oil spills and the interrelationship of the governments, and in trying to figure out who has responsibility, we have to talk about it in that context. That being the case, I would like to say that, having received these figures, we can take confirmation from the minister's comments that if this contingent was in place prior to the oil spill, clearly the Coast Guard did not have the ability to respond adequately; and if the minister doesn't agree, it is certainly agreed on by the general public in their observations of the fiasco that ensued.

I might at this time just point out that I do appreciate the comment that the Minister of Environment just made with regard to Dave LeBlanc in attempting to set the record straight on the issue of his cabinet's appreciation of the work of Mr. LeBlanc, who was very highly regarded by the general public

[ Page 8146 ]

for his work in coordinating the volunteers. By his comment, this minister has distanced himself from the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and his remarks during his estimates, which were most unfortunate. I am pleased to hear this expression coming from within the cabinet because I think it's tremendously important that we support the work that volunteers do in such a disaster or emergency.

HON. MR. REE: He never belonged to PEP.

MR. CASHORE: Okay.

The facts that the contingent of Coast Guard people is available within this province and that there was such an inadequate response to the spill are indications that the Minister of Environment — whose mandate is as large as the entire province of British Columbia — has a responsibility to take a lead role, especially when that role is not being taken by other jurisdictions. It's clear that the federal-provincial agreement is that the Coast Guard has the lead role. But what about the role of the Ministry of Environment to ride herd on that and make sure it's happening on time and is being done properly?

Just as an example, if the situation were to develop again tomorrow, isn't the Ministry of Environment concerned with the statements made by the Solicitor-General that we have to wait for a report before we get more garbage bags and rakes into some of the communities where the volunteers would go if there were another such disaster? Isn't the Ministry of Environment concerned about taking leadership in those areas to ensure that the equipment and the capacity to deal with the situation are in place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A couple of minutes ago I read you the contingency plans that we've put in place and the variety of positions in it — the schematic and the responsibility of the people. I'll read it again if you want, or you can look it up in Hansard, but I think that pretty well answers your question.

We have a very detailed response team in place. We have two of them: one for the north and one for the south. We have identified all their duties, how they are going to coordinate with all other agencies, and as I said, it doesn't seem to be faulted in any quarters. As a matter of fact, we have the governments of Alaska and now Norway wanting to look at this plan, because they think it's a good way of dealing with the issue and of managing and detailing the staff.

I thank you again for your question, but the response is the same as before: there are two teams in place; they have their duties identified. The response is identified. We see it as a first-class organization and make no apology for it.

With respect to the Coast Guard, I would just love to do all sorts of things that the federal government has jurisdiction to do, but regrettably we can't. This is a Confederation, the country of Canada. There are provincial responsibilities and federal responsibilities.

The Department of National Defence — in case you're not aware of it — has a navy, a Coast Guard, helicopters and ships and does search and rescue and all that type of work on the high seas, and it really doesn't become our responsibility till something is land-based; in other words, until it hits our shore.

You can check with your constitutional friends on that to better learn the distinction between the two governments, but that is the way it works. Perhaps some of your members have served in the armed services and could tell you what the distinction is, or perhaps you could talk to some of the people who live in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who also serve in the armed services. They can maybe enlighten you and your colleague on the distinction between the two governments and the various agency responsibilities.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister. During question period, I asked the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) some questions relating to Millstream Creek. Will the minister confirm that the recommendation from his ministry to the Attorney-General's department was that prosecution should proceed with respect to the spill on Millstream Creek?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I will neither confirm nor deny interministerial communications.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, there's no blanket for commenting on what his ministry recommended. We discussed yesterday what his ministry had recommended regarding charges for the contamination of soils at Port Renfrew, and the minister discussed quite openly the two statutes that would apply in that instance. It seems to me that the minister himself has already commented on these matters. Am I correct in concluding that one of the reasons the minister does not want to answer that question is that that was the recommendation?

[3:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. SIHOTA: So the minister is saying that the matter of the recommendation was not one of the reasons. Could he tell the House why he is not prepared to tell us what the recommendations of his own people were? He did that yesterday with respect to Port Renfrew, to the extent that he could. Could he now tell us what the internal recommendations of his own people were?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If we have discussions with respect to a prosecution that might or might not take place — we are having those discussions with the Attorney-General's ministry, and I don't know if they've concluded yet — I don't think it's in the best interest of the people of British Columbia to be discussing it in this forum. As a matter of fact, I think it would offend the rule of anticipation.

MR. SIHOTA: The only thing that would offend anything is the minister's rather flippant response to

[ Page 8147 ]

the question. The point remains that his ministry investigated. I'll just ask the minister a number of questions then. Did his ministry identify, during the course of its investigation, which regulation and statute were broken with respect to the Millstream Creek spill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't particularly care for this junior barroom lawyer — cub reporter, cub lawyer — line of questioning. Perhaps the member could put everything into one big question, and I'll get to it.

MR. SIHOTA: Then could the minister tell the House in general terms what the conclusions of his ministry's investigation were with respect to the spill at Millstream Creek?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. SIHOTA: So much for open government. Could the minister give an accounting to the House of the investigation made by his people? When did it begin? When did it end? What did you discover? Under which enactments was the investigation carried out?

Could the minister confirm to this House that the reason he is unwilling to answer these questions is the embarrassment he feels at me asking these questions? Is he somehow embarrassed because I'm asking these questions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm certainly not. The point is that an investigation has gone on. Internal communications have happened between two ministries, and a decision may or may not have been made. I don't think it's in the best interests of anyone to carry on this type of discussion or to try to extract from me what may follow if prosecution is to occur. I certainly would not be serving the environment or the people of British Columbia in the best manner if I were to divulge that to you.

I know you have an insatiable appetite for this type of stuff, but you're not going to get it from me. You can ramble on all day. When I'm prepared to tell you or the people of British Columbia anything with respect to this incident, I will, but not until such time as I'm prepared to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister should understand that he is responsible to the people of British Columbia through this House, and the questions we put to him from this side of the House. There's an expectation that he will provide answers to the questions. Of course, there's no obligation that he will provide answers, but if the democratic process is to work, and work properly, then of course the minister would live up to his moral duty to answer these types of questions.

I can understand the predicament the government finds itself in. It talks very tough in saying that we're going to take on corporate polluters and be tough with them. But the proof lies in the pudding. This was a spill that occurred after all the tough talk started. It occurred after the oil spill on the west coast. It's the first opportunity the government has had to explain its actions and to prove that it is indeed prepared to get tough with polluters.

My conversations with ministry officials are such as to lead me to believe that a recommendation has been made to lay a charge. The Attorney-General has confirmed — the minister doesn't seem to have understood this — that there will be no prosecution. He's not going to jeopardize the process, in light of the comment already made by the Attorney-General along the lines that there will be no prosecution. If there's no embarrassment or fear on the part of the minister, could he explain why he is not prepared to engage in an open discussion as to the decisions made in his own ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, because I don't accept what the member is saying as being factual. I don't think he's got it right. Until I saw verification from my ministry staff, I would not accept what he's saying. I have no reason to accept what he's saying.

MR. SIHOTA: That's always the easy out — just to say you don't believe the other guy. Let me put it to the minister this way; let me give him the other out. Is he saying that he has reason to believe that the staff in his own ministry have recommended that no action be taken with respect to the Petro-Canada spill at Millstream Creek?

If the minister wants to wimp out and not answer questions, that's his prerogative. If he doesn't want to do his job.... Any time we get into some tough questioning here, the minister decides he's just going to sit. If he is not prepared to answer questions and deal with some of the tougher issues in his own ministry, I suggest that he quit and let someone else do the job of Minister of Environment, someone who is at least prepared to answer some very basic questions.

I don't think the type of conduct that we're seeing in the House from the minister is what's expected of a minister of the Crown when being asked very basic questions that deal with the administration of his ministry. The actions of the minister are shameful in terms of just sitting there smirking away and not answering questions when he knows there's a straightforward contradiction between his government's rhetoric about being tough and what appears to be — not appears to be, but what is indeed — the lack of action on the part of the government in prosecuting these people. You can have it every way, but eventually some people will call you on it. You can stand up and say, "Yes, we are going to have $3 million fines," or $1 million fines or whatever, but if you're not going to prosecute, if you're not going to take these people to court, it doesn't matter much.

We've cited statistics in the past as to how neglectful you have been in protecting the environment. We know how bad you've been before, and look at you today. You are not prepared to improve your track

[ Page 8148 ]

record in that regard. My suggestion to the minister is that it's time he got real and decided what his job is. Are you going to be an advocate for the environment or not? You've got a problem here: you know someone broke the law; you know your regulations were violated; you know there was a trespass on the environment; and you know that something went wrong which prevented you from proceeding with the prosecution. Are you prepared to tell this House now what went wrong?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will try to be as polite and as delicate as I can on this issue. We've got a member who doesn't understand what the Coast Guard does, and we've got another critic who can't read a museum sign. Now the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is leading in certain information which I quite frankly don't believe. I'm sorry; I just can't believe that member.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister says he doesn't believe me, then he has obviously come to the conclusion that there are differences in fact between what I am saying and what he is saying. In order to prove me wrong, which I'm sure the minister would delight in, will he now stand up in the House and tell us which facts in his possession will rebut what I am saying? Provide us with the information that you've got, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the spirit of open government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the spirit of good environmental law, the answer is absolutely not. It would be silly.

MR. SIHOTA: Good environmental law means prosecuting these people who spill oil into creeks and streams in British Columbia, and you are not doing it. You are not doing it in my riding, you are not doing it in Howe Sound, and you are not doing it in other areas in this province where fish habitat is being affected by pulp mills.

MR. CASHORE: They don't have the staff.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't have the staff, you don't have the conservation officers, but most importantly, you don't have the will. You are selling out. The whole history of this Social Credit Party has been one of sellout to large corporate interests...

MR. R. FRASER. That's ridiculous.

MR. SIHOTA: ...and telling them that they are not prepared to take action.

MR. PETERSON: A crock of baloney.

MR. SIHOTA: If that causes a sting to some of the members over there, then take a look at the record of prosecutions. My colleague from Coquitlam has brought it out over and over again.

MR. PETERSON: The so-called expert in everything. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. SIHOTA: Read the annual report from your own ministry, which shows how little prosecution you guys do. You walk in here and say: "Oh yeah, we just hired Peter Ewert to do some work in terms of prosecution of these matters." That's just flim-flam for two reasons: (1) you don't have the legislation that can do the job; and (2) you don't have the will to do the job, because you've sold out to those large companies that walk into your office in the middle of the afternoon and say: "Hey, look, give us a break." And it's break after break that you're giving them.

In fairness, I'm quite happy to say to the minister that there are instances where breaks should be provided, but there are also instances where prosecution should take place. I'm not questioning the minister on those examples where it's legitimate to provide someone with a break; but in those situations where it's not, where his own people recommend prosecution, it's a different story.

We'll come back to the matter of Millstream. Maybe the minister on sober second reflection will come to the conclusion that he's prepared to answer some of the questions and let those people in my riding know why no charges have been laid. Tell the people in my riding, who saw the oil come in and affect their property and their enjoyment of their property, why this government which talks so loudly walks so softly when it comes to prosecution. Mr. Minister, you owe an explanation to the public, people in my riding who are affected, as to why you aren't taking any action on the spill at Millstream Creek. Be honest, just tell us; just admit that it's either a failing of legislation or a lack of will.

I want to ask him some questions that deal with the oil spill which occurred on the west coast. Maybe he will be more forthcoming in his discussion on that. There was obviously some damage that was caused, and I referred to this during the course of the ministerial statement: economic damage and also costs incurred by his ministry in the cleanup. First, has the minister quantified the costs to the taxpayers in terms of that west coast oil spill? Second, could he tell us what he is doing in terms of trying to recover those costs from the United States government?

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have quantified our staff, and we have held a meeting with the Ministry of the Attorney-General and federal officials from External Affairs and justice. If the member wishes to refresh his memory, in early January I was advised by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard that because we were dealing with another country, it would be an affair of negotiations between External Affairs and the Secretary of State in the U.S. I don't know if that has changed or not, but that was the advice that was

[ Page 8149 ]

given publicly, and the member should be aware of it, because Lucien Bouchard said that in January.

We have a couple of options here in terms of what we are going to do, and I don't know if I'm about to explore those yet. But I can assure you that we will insist on seeking compensation for the damage that was done to the coast of British Columbia.

I'd like to just get back to something the member said earlier about willingness to prosecute. I can assure you that nothing would make me happier than to prosecute PetroCan. I also have to reject solidly that the big corporate interests walk into my office and dictate what I'm doing. As a matter of fact, the big corporate interests in British Columbia are going to be coughing up about $1 billion by the time I'm finished with them in terms of....

MR. SIHOTA: More tough talk.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, just add it up. They're into about $800 million so far in terms of dioxin control. I'll show you the press releases. I'll read them to you, if you can't understand them yourself.

Low-sulphur oil. You probably don't understand that either, but that's in place now. When you include air shed work that's being done in Prince George — again, the construction is in place — the cost to the pulping industry will be close to $1 billion. So I wouldn't say that they can walk into my office and tell me how they're going to operate; we tell them how they're going to operate, and the proof is there. You asked for proof — the proof of the pudding or in whatever immature way you characterized it. It's there, I can assure you.

I will send you the press releases issued by Northwood, Canfor and all the other people about the work they're doing. I will send you the press releases with respect to low-sulphur oil, and I will show you the air work that's being done in Prince George by Canfor and Northwood. I'll show you the construction estimates and the money that's committed now, and you'll see that we're well into $1 billion So I can't accept your laughably uninformed charges that we're not being tough on the industry.

MR. SIHOTA: While you're showing me things, maybe you'll also agree to show me your file on Millstream Creek and explain why you're not taking action against Petro-Canada. You know, it's just amazing how the minister can blabber about everything else but is ill-prepared to talk about the proof And it's amazing how he can sprinkle in one cheap shot after another in his response but not deal with the guts of the issue: namely, an explanation from his ministry for why they can allow Petro-Canada to pollute what we describe as a creek but what is actually quite a large area of water in my riding and not take any action.

MR. CASHORE: It's a PR ministry.

MR. SIHOTA: You know, it is. The minister talks about public relations. It's a PR ministry. Press releases come cheap; paper is cheap. But action is what counts. We ain't seen it from your ministry. We just have this new greening of the Socred Party all of a sudden, as if the Premier's hair is just starting to turn green with some realization that it's an issue that is high on the polls. Where was your concern before? Get off it. Who are you trying to fool, Mr. Minister? You guys have a rotten record on the environment. it has been quoted to you already by my colleague. Now that you have your chance to prove that you're going to do better, you're not doing it.

Could the minister tell me how much compensation? What are those costs? He says he quantified them. Could he give us a dollar figure of what it cost the taxpayer — from his ministry — to clean up the oil spill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize anybody else, I would like to mention at this point that it would seem to me that the language being used in this debate could be moderated considerably and the same level of debate achieved by so doing. I would request that as we proceed, more moderate language be the order of the day.

MR. R. FRASER: I enter this debate with delight.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Member for Langley — and I'll be moderate as always.

I want the opposition to hear and be reminded what their plan was for the future when they talked about the oil spill on the west coast. They said: "Store up a few garbage bags and some gloves just in case." As we all know, garbage bags are biodegradable; they deteriorate one way or another. What are they going to do? Run around with gloves and garbage bags. Not this government; not the federal government either.

We're trying to make sure there's a vessel on the west coast capable of scooping up the oil before it gets to the shore. That's what we're doing, and that's what that minister is supporting. There is such a vessel in provincial waters right now that a local company is working with the federal government to modify so it can be used for picking up oil from the water.

There was interesting talk about the greening of this government. What an interesting idea. Their idea of greening is to say to all the loggers: "Don't log; don't cut down a tree." Where's their position? You never hear it. When Jack Munro and the loggers come to the Legislature steps, where are they? They're hiding down in the legislative dining-room. Why are they hiding down there? Because Jack Munro told them to hide down there. This minister and the other ministers go out and talk to the friends — and the enemies — of the government. But the opposition leader, the opponents, whatever.... Whoever's out there, we'll go and talk with them, but not those

[ Page 8150 ]

members opposite. No, when their special interest friends come by, they run for cover. They always have; they always will. They won't face a hard job. Now they're backtracking on some of their great press and TV releases — Backtrack Bob they call him — and on and on it goes.

That member there asks what we're doing. "Take action against the U.S. government." Of course, there's protocol, and that's what this minister's going through; there are channels for these things.

I want to remind those members opposite where their responsibility lies. It's called critical, constructive opposition. I don't see too much of that. Nagging and harassing the minister — which they can't do, but they're trying — pretending we're in a court of law when we're in a chamber to gather information and make sure the public knows what everybody in government is doing, how we're spending the taxpayers' dollars, what the Coast Guard actually does. Learning how to read and think is what we want from the members opposite.

MR. PETERSON: Did you say "think"? That's mission impossible.

MR. R. FRASER: I want them to think. I know it'd difficult for them, but they've got to try. You know, the garbage-bag mentality.... You don't save garbage bags; you use better methods. It applies to every ministry, whether it's Education, Environment, Forests or Municipal Affairs. Let's have a little upgrading here.

I want to hear from the minister about what he's doing so that everybody in this whole chamber will know and everybody in the province will know what the government's doing. We're going to have a combination of environment, forestry and all those other things that make it work. We'll show up at the meetings and talk to everybody. We'll be there. Will they? That's the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member earlier asked a question about funding. We don't have the figures totally together yet. There's a request by the federal government to use a federal format in terms of identifying our costs, and that's being worked on now. Presumably they'll be ready as soon as possible, in terms of identifying what the costs have been to the taxpayers of British Columbia, from the point of view of both the Ministry of Environment and other ministries that were involved. We can make those figures public, but they are not available at this point. There are probably still some expenses being incurred as well.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Garbage bags and garbage-bag mentalities have been mentioned in the House by the member for Vancouver South. I'd like to ask the minister how many garbage bags, rakes and shovels were purchased during the oil spill. How much money did the Ministry of Environment spend on the cleanup of that oil spill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The provision of supplies was the responsibility of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree).

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm glad to see the Solicitor General is back in the House to hear the Minister of Environment's response to that question.

It's my understanding that the provincial government paid out no money to purchase any materials and that those materials were in fact donated. They're still donated, and they're sitting in a warehouse — an attachment to the fire hall — waiting to be used when the next oil spill happens, because the people of the west coast from my riding recognized fully the inadequate response by the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, the member was informed a couple of minutes ago that supplies are a responsibility of the Ministry of Solicitor-General. Questions about that should then be addressed to the minister. His estimates have since passed, and obviously the member missed that opportunity, but he might try in question period tomorrow.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, the issue that the member for Alberni is addressing is an environmental issue. It relates to a total coordination of environmental deployment of resources, and it interfaces with the Solicitor-General, but it is appropriately on environmental turf.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just in response, the question was to do with garbage bags and rakes. I advised the committee that that is a responsibility of the Ministry of Solicitor-General. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam may take a different view of that, but regrettably that is the way the government is organized. Whether he likes it or not the Ministry of Solicitor-General has the PEP program. They are responsible for those types of supplies, and I understand, as the member advises me, that it was well canvassed in the estimates. I repeat: the debate now is not only repetitive but I would suggest it is also quite futile.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister suggests that is how the government is organized; I would argue that that is how it is disorganized.

If he doesn't want to take any responsibility for the purchase of material or supplies when an environmental disaster happens, we recognize the confusion that existed between not only his ministry but also the Solicitor-General's ministry and the Coast Guard when the oil spill happened and how long it took to sort out. Perhaps he could tell us if an inventory has been done as to how many birds, seals and crabs were killed, what the environmental damage was of the oil spill on the west coast and whether a tabulation has been done of those facts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's information being prepared now. But you have to understand the

[ Page 8151 ]

tragedy of the situation. The spill is a killer to birds or other sea life when it's still an oil slick, and as it dissipates and turns into patties, it's not so dangerous. Many of the birds washed ashore were American birds; they were identified because of the species. They had been killed in the slick by the oil when it was still on the surface area. A lot of that kill happened in the Canadian waters as well, but it began to dissipate as the oil clumped and sunk below the surface, so it's going to be very difficult to identify what the Canadian loss has been as opposed to the American loss, because the people I spoke to at Tofino did indicate that they recognized species more unique to the United States drifting in with the spill itself, so there's that explanation.

I'm also advised that the federal government has taken on the task of identifying what the wildlife loss will be, and presumably they'll be presenting that information publicly as soon as they have it available.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister. It seems that he doesn't have a responsibility for purchasing materials, and now the federal government has the responsibility for tabulating the losses. Perhaps he could tell us, in light of the Attorney-General's ministerial statement earlier this afternoon about compensation.... I still have a number of constituents who are seeking compensation for losses when the fisheries were closed and when oil was tracked through their restaurants. The municipalities there expended a certain amount of dollars cleaning up the beaches within their boundaries. Will the ministry be pursuing through the Attorney-General compensation for those constituents of mine who are still waiting to hear from this government whether or not they will receive any remuneration for their losses?

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the member had heard the Attorney-General's statement earlier in the Legislative Assembly, or listened to my debate later on today, he'd know that that clearly is an issue of the Attorney-General and also External Affairs of Canada and justice of Canada.

I guess at this point it's probably appropriate that maybe I respond by pointing out that there are ministers and ministries in Canada other than the Ministry of Environment. Everybody seems to think that we are responsible for everything: federal jurisdiction, the law and a variety of measures. I wish I could take unto myself and unto this ministry those awesome responsibilities; however, that's not the way it's done in cabinet. There are shared responsibilities for the management of the province and also for the management of the government of Canada.

I know that some of the members opposite are going to wring their hands with glee and say: "Oh, gee, you don't do anything." Well, we do quite a bit We have an extensive budget and an extensive staff However, when it comes to Coast Guard helicopters, the laws of the land, external affairs and negotiations with other countries, they are not our responsibility. I know that may be difficult for some of the members to accept; nevertheless, that's the way it is. I'll provide them more details in written form on the administration of government and the way we are organized in B.C. and in Canada If they wish.

MR. CASHORE: Earlier the minister was talking about the Coast Guard. He was just saying a moment ago that he's not responsible for these different ministries and governments, which is true. He does have a responsibility, though, in a creative way, to ensure that there is effective coordination for the benefit of the protection of the environment.

One case in point that I find very interesting was reported to me a few days ago. It's about a spill that took place in Fitz Hugh Sound. It's alleged — again, I'm not saying it is a fact — that one of the Regent line ships, either the Princess or the Sun, had possibly dumped its bilge while going through the Inside Passage, and that it soiled ten or 15 miles of beach. About 400 pounds of debris was collected up, and the tugboat Martha L. Black from the Canadian Coast Guard was dispatched to deal with the situation.

Apparently it was heavy bunker oil. There were some people from the area who, I believe, helped the Coast Guard crew work on cleaning up that spill. One of the things that concerned me was that apparently what was used in cleaning up that spill was jet fuel, which is very similar to kerosene. With all of these things, there are two arguments. One argument is that it evaporates very quickly, and therefore it has a minimal environmental impact; the other argument is that it's actually more toxic than the bunker oil. Where it does manage to seep into the sand, the biota and the life on the rocks where it's used, it potentially creates a problem. I realize that it's difficult to know right away all of the impacts of all of these things.

As I tried to investigate this case, I asked if the following agencies were contacted prior to the Coast Guard undertaking its clean-up work using this substance, which is alleged to be toxic to the degree of being more dangerous than what it was to clean up. Was federal Fisheries notified? Was Environment Canada notified? Was PEP notified? Was the British Columbia Ministry of Environment notified? My understanding is that PEP isn't necessarily notified in all cases unless it's deemed that it should be, for whatever criteria.

I would think that where a substance would be placed on the British Columbia shoreline, certainly the Ministry of Environment should be notified. I'm not saying it wasn't. I am just saying that the information I have is that it wasn't. I'd be very happy if, through your deputy, Mr. Minister, you are able to report that indeed your ministry was notified. If the answer is — since I'm trying to save some time here — that you have been notified, then I want some technical data with regard to an assessment of the use of kerosene in such a situation.

I also understand from a person who was a witness that there were people there who were asked to place the substance on a beach, which was a clam beach, and that they refused to do so, in the belief that it could cause some toxicity among the commer-

[ Page 8152 ]

cial clams there. Again, it raises a question: if this kerosene was being sprayed on the rocks in an area where there were clam beaches, is it not a really serious concern that with the tidal action and everything, material might be carried into the area where that clam beach is? I'd like the minister to comment on that, most importantly with regard to the interface between the Coast Guard and the Ministry of Environment in such a situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, were we informed? The answer is yes. Investigation took place immediately. I understand that the ship they thought had dumped that bilge oil.... The Coast Guard could not come to any conclusion that they had done that. However, there was no question that the bilge oil was there. They couldn't find the person who had done it; that is regrettable. I guess we'll always be suspicious about who did dump the bilge oil.

The Ministry of Environment was notified and is responsible for cleaning up or accepting all of the debris, and it has done that. There was some discussion between our officials and federal officials with respect to the methodology, and I can't give you a technical opinion on the use of jet fuel; as you say, it's just a very dry kerosene. But at first blush and as a layman, I would suspect that the kerosene would be a better product to use than anything else. It would also be a little better than what's there, because if it's bilge oil, it would be sulphur. It could probably have lead in it and other contaminants, so the use of clean jet fuel would probably be the lesser of two evils in trying to get rid of the debris and the contamination.

You can also appreciate that the salt water ocean is a very hostile environment to anything, including jet fuel, and it would quickly dissipate. You mentioned the tides; the tide action there is significant, so probably the decision to use jet fuel as a clean-up was the best decision. It was made by technical experts who surveyed all remedies available to them, and to use jet fuel to clean it up was far superior to just leaving the bilge oil there.

That would be my opinion at this point, but it's pretty hard to second-guess technicians who were on the scene, and who make these judgments as quickly as they can before the damage spreads.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister — I don't expect him to be able to do this during estimates — to gather some information through his ministry on this, because I think it's a very important issue, especially with regard to the adjacent clam bearing beaches. Those of us who do some boating in the summertime know that areas where vessels are tied up are closed to shellfish fishing, because fuels are leaking into those waters causing toxicity and therefore a dangerous situation.

Specifically with regard to the area of Fitz Hugh Sound, I would appreciate it very much if the ministry would ask the federal officials to do some testing on that beach in that area, just to ensure that it is covered. We know that those clam beaches are receiving a great deal of activity at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on to the issue of the B.C.-Washington spill task force. As you know, the task force was set up as part of the minister's response following the oil spill. As far as I know, the first meeting took place fortuitously on Easter weekend, which happened to be the same weekend as the Alaska oil spill. I would be interested in knowing how many times this task force has met, when it has met, and where it has met.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will get to those questions quickly. I would just like to talk briefly about Fitz Hugh Sound. I will provide the information — we have taken notes — that the member has asked for as quickly as we can with respect to analysis of the soils and any potential damage to the clam fishery.

You will recall, Mr. Member, that I was speaking yesterday about the lighthouse keeper at Carmanah Point being the first one to notice the Grays Harbor spill. I said that the lighthouse keeper immediately checked to see if it was bilge oil and then — recognizing the quantity of the spill — made the quick decision that it must be the Grays Harbor oil, because of the amount there.

The reason they made the assumption it was bilge oil was because — and I asked that question — it happens quite commonly that they will find little bits of oil coming onshore from guys dumping their bilges. They immediately report to marine traffic controllers — who are like air traffic controllers — to check on the passage and the activity in the various shipping lanes to see if they could track somebody.

It's a really serious problem; there's no question about it. You might recall that at the same time we were having our problem there was a very bad problem on the east coast — I think in Nova Scotia — with respect to a bilge oil spill. In that case there had been quite a bit of oil dumped from a ship's bilge, and it had done some serious damage to the beaches. It's something we have to live with; it's not a very pleasant situation.

It would behoove all governments to continue to do better enforcement of the shipping lanes and to ensure that the traffic off our coast behave themselves. But it is a difficult thing to track, particularly if some guy is dumping in the middle of the night and then is carrying on at 15 to 16 knots. You will never see that spill until he's long gone.

As I said, I will get you as much information as quickly as I can with respect to Fitz Hugh Sound and the damage there.

With respect to the task force, they have met formally twice. They have met informally and had discussions on more occasions, and their meetings have been located in Victoria and in the state of Washington.

MR. CASHORE: I agree with the minister's remarks with regard to the problem of ships dumping their bilges. I've hiked the West Coast Trail three times and have noticed some pockets on the beach where obviously these substances have been dumped, and I recognize the problem. I appreciate

[ Page 8153 ]

the diligence of the light keeper at the Carmanah light. Even though it may be slightly out of order, I would put in a good word for maintaining manned — or personned — lighthouses. I know the minister agrees.

[3:45]

With regard to the meetings of the task force, I would think two formal meetings is really an indication that this.... Given the scope of what the PR hype has indicated this is all about, I don't think it has really been enough to begin to produce the needed result in terms of cross-boundary agreements on a number of really important issues. I do recognize that the minister is looking forward to the advice of David Anderson, but David Anderson has been giving free advice to the minister for quite some time. Prior to them starting to pay him for it, he had several letters to the editor and columns in the papers, and he has already given the minister some of those findings. So we have a pretty good idea where some of that should be going, and to delay is certainly questionable.

One of the things that was pointed out during the development of the relationship between Washington and British Columbia as this work progressed was that the meetings in Canada were to be held in camera, yet according to the more progressive environmental and information laws and that sort of thing in the state of Washington, the meetings in Washington had to be open to the public. I find therein that this government has fallen into a rather embarrassing indictment of really being behind the times with regard to this type of situation. In view of the fact that he wants to promote cooperation with Washington, and in view of the fact that the meetings are required to be open there, has the minister dealt with the question of having the same standards for meetings when they're conducted in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I have to react mildly, but react nevertheless, to the notion that this is PR hype. Officials from three states and one Canadian province are working diligently on behalf of their respective governments. I certainly wouldn't characterize or slander their good works with the term 'TR hype." I think that's most inappropriate. I hope the member recognizes what he's saying, and what he's saying about some very dedicated people.

Secondly, with respect to the meetings, two meetings have been held, as I said, but four subcommittees have been formed from that to identify various issues. As I said earlier, officials are attending from the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and of course from the province of British Columbia. The first meeting was held in camera in Victoria, and that was at the request of all parties. The second meeting, held in Washington, was open. It is our opinion that subsequent meetings held anywhere will be open. We have no problem with that. But in the best interests of drawing the committee together, of having frank and meaningful discussion, it was felt that all parties agree to hold the first meeting in camera.

I want to repeat what I said yesterday with respect to everybody looking at what everybody else is doing: sometimes that is counterproductive. I know there are sunshine laws in the United States, but in dealing with other EPA officials that I've met with on committees from time to time to discuss business, we find that when you have this type of sunshine legislation and you have open meetings to discuss virtually everything, most of the business then gets done on the telephone or by fax. In fact, the open meetings provide the public with nothing. The real committee work is done away from the glare. So putting those laws in place is sometimes quite unproductive, although generally I support open meetings. That has always been my policy as an MLA and, as the record will show, as a school board chairman, which is the position I held before. I have never been in favour of closed meetings except when, for one reason or another, they have to be closed. There are some downsides to this total sunshine legislation, and they are downsides that can be counterproductive to the issues at hand.

MR. CASHORE: My comments with regard to PR hype were directed solely towards the politicians on the government side. I do recognize that the individuals who have been appointed to work on this process are doing the best they can under the circumstances.

With regard to openness of meetings and freedom of information, that whole range of issues comes up so much in our environmental discussions because of a public that is becoming ever more knowledgeable, ever more useful in terms of being able to make use of having information available to them and contributing to the body politic and to the process of creative development and effective decision-making. I would just remind the minister that Ron Holcomb of the Washington ecology department and a member of the committee said: "There are very few meetings that can be closed to the public down here." He very much believes in the public process. "It's the way we do business," he said.

Notwithstanding the points that the minister makes about sunshine legislation and all that sort of thing, the fact is that there should be legislation in British Columbia that enables the public to have a much greater degree of access to what is going on than presently exists. This is affirmed time and again by people in our province who want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem — as our friend here has characterized some people as being.

I want to turn now to the memorandum of cooperation between the British Columbia government and the state of Washington. It's an instrument that was signed on July 10, 1972. When you look at the setup of the meetings of the task force and the scope of the job description of what that is to achieve, you get a kind of an eerie feeling as you go through the 1972 documentation.

It has been admitted that this material sat on a shelf and was virtually lost from view. Also, the minister doesn't have to say it; I will say what he has

[ Page 8154 ]

said. He blames three years of an NDP government for saying that it was lost, and yet totally ignores his responsibility of the stewardship of the ensuing 14 years.

I know the minister is going to make that point because he wants to get it on the record, but the fact is that if we were to take a look at the staff complement within his ministry during the restraint years — and unfortunately I don't have those figures with me, but I will bring them into the House at a later part of these estimates — it's very clear that during previous Social Credit administrations decisions were made that made it impossible for his staff, who worked so hard within that ministry, to be in the process of keeping in touch with every dust-carrying document on the shelves, etc. So when the oil spill came along, the number one task for this government was a PR task. It was to convince the public that something was being done when the instrument already existed, an instrument that this government had failed to make use of because they wanted to get the public relations value out of it again.

It didn't really work. I would hasten to add it didn't work at all. The public saw through it. Cartoons were in the media — the media that the minister has referred to as being hysterical and using hype. But the fact of the matter is that an instrument existed, an instrument that could have been used, an instrument that could have saved valuable time so that the protection of our coastline could be much further along than it is now in terms of the deployment of equipment, in terms of international agreements as to how to proceed in the event of an emergency, in terms of having the equipment in place that would enable such a disaster to be dealt with quickly.

While I am saying that, I am going to go on to another matter, because I am trying to cover as much ground as I possibly can in a short time.

It is really unfortunate to realize that there is technology in British Columbia that could be made use of and that we have to wait until we get the studies and reports of these various task forces before we can get down to doing the job of, for instance, a proper done-in-British-Columbia assessment of the OSCAR technology.

I arranged for a meeting to take place between the principals of the OSCAR people and the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) because I believed — and it's a point I made, having listened to the budget speech of the first member for Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) — that when it comes to British Columbia technology and the whole area of environmental development, the need for environmental technology that can be used worldwide, British Columbia has an opportunity to be a world-class centre in the development of that technology.

I see the minister nodding his head. The minister from time to time, when referring to the OSCAR technology, has referred to it as a skimmer. The principals of that company have pointed out to the minister and to others that it is not a skimmer; it is a system that goes to a depth of close to three feet and has a phenomenal rate of separating water from oil and returning the oil to a contained area.

I don't have the capability to say whether or not it works, but it has been tested. Apparently it has been evaluated on the basis of the wrong technology, the wrong criteria by the federal government, and therefore it has not had a fair representation. Just imagine it manufactured in British Columbia, and British Columbia having a requirement through its international agreements that every oil tanker offshore has to have one of these on its deck, perched beside a crane — they have a unit that is as small as 40 feet long — and that in the instance of a spill at sea, this technology supposedly could deal with this problem right at the source.

At the very least, these people deserve to have a very thorough hearing. I know that the principals of the OSCAR group have met with the deputy minister. As a matter of fact, I went to meet with the deputy minister the same day they were there. I just want to encourage the minister to do everything he possibly can to enable this technology here in Oak Bay to have a fair hearing, with a possible view to its becoming a job-creating export that could be very beneficial to the people of British Columbia, not to mention that were it deployed in strategic areas along the coast it could be very beneficial there as well.

The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain mentioned submersibles, which is another technology that British Columbia is renowned for. A third technology that I would mention is the Candel Industries Sea Rover electronic tracking device, which is already deployed in some federal government departments and used for tracking the patterns of currents. When I was at a hearing on environmental issues that was conducted in Vancouver, one of the principals of that company was asked if that device was used in the Grays Harbor spill. He said no. He also said that had it been deployed, it could have told the ministry that the spill was indeed moving towards Carmanah Point and other places along the coast. Again, this is made-in-British Columbia technology. The post office box is Sidney.

I would think that if the technology can be proven, it shouldn't be necessary to wait until some committee reports to decide that we should have some of these devices available to us. We should also be looking at the possibilities for using it as an export commodity as we get up to speed in the area of exporting sound environmental technology.

With that, I'll wait for the minister's comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member can well imagine, I've had many presentations from companies and individuals who have told me about the technology they have.

By the way, Dave McIntyre of OSCAR is from Prince George. He's a friend of mine; I've known him for some time. He used to be in a radio station up there, so I'm familiar with the proponents. He may not like my use of the word "skimmer," but at three feet, when we're dealing with materials that could be

[ Page 8155 ]

far deeper than three feet, as a layman I would categorize it as a skimmer, because the clumps of bunker, which, as I said earlier, have the same specific gravity as water, do sink quite quickly.

[4:00]

There have been many suggestions put to us, notably the one by my colleague the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). It has to do with a piece of equipment that's going to be operating on the west coast, hopefully, if my urgings are listened to.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) inquired earlier about an oil spill involving several hundred litres of oil spilling into Millstream Creek in his riding from a Petro-Canada operation. The company was required to determine the source, and they excavated and found a problem with an oil separation unit. So it wasn't a deliberate spill; in fact, it was a malfunction. They repaired the problem, the majority of the oil was recovered, and a small amount of contaminated soil was removed from the site. The Ministry of Environment staff investigated, and the case summary report went to Crown counsel about the middle of May. Further inquiries should be made with Ministry of Attorney-General.

With respect to the decision taken by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), the member's data, as I thought earlier, is incorrect. He did mislead the House on that issue.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know why the minister says there's been misleading. The fact is that the Attorney-General indicated in this House that the decision had been made not to prosecute. I take it that the minister doesn't disagree with that. I have the quote of the Attorney-General from his statement in question period. In fact, I was just looking it over to make sure I had heard it right. I asked him to explain why they had not proceeded with the prosecution. The gist of the answers appears on page 7 of the Blues: they had chosen not to prosecute. The Attorney-General has already made the statement, so I would ask the minister to withdraw any comments that I was misleading the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The information I have is that you were incorrect. You'll have to ask the Attorney what he said or what he heard you say or what question he asked, but the information that I have with respect to prosecution is at odds with what you have advised the committee.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, there's a disagreement between the two members with regard to who said what, but the phrase that has been used is "misled the House." I'm sure that the deputy House Leader knows the rules of the House, and I would ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the committee I'll withdraw the imputation of misbehaviour. I didn't use the term "deliberately misled," which would really be unparliamentary, but I'll withdraw the terms.

We are at odds on this issue. I don't think there's any point in my carrying on further discussion, as there appears to be more of a difference of opinion between the Attorney and me than between the member and me, although I suspect he's wrong and doesn't have all the information because he was wrong in the information he presented to the House in terms of the extent of the spill.

As I said, it was not a deliberate spill. It was a malfunction of an oil separation unit. They repaired the problem. The oil was recovered — you didn't mention that. The soil was removed from the site. You brought none of that information to the House, or if you did you didn't bring it in that form.

Back to the questions posed by the member with respect to oil spill technology. As I said earlier, we have had literally dozens of suggestions, some far out — I guess we could categorize them that way — and some quite substantial.

As the member for Vancouver South indicated, a firm that he was talking to and gentlemen that I met have a substantial operation and could, if the technology is correct, prove to be very beneficial to us in cleaning up oil spills. OSCAR is another remedy. There are chemical remedies available to us, and we are investigating everything.

The interesting thing, though, is that David Anderson — who really has spent the last 20 years researching this — has told me that the big problem you face is the shipping industry itself. It obviously has lax regulations. We know their personnel practices really aren't too good when we understand the character of the captain of the ship. We have other problems — or at least David Anderson has serious problems, and he's spent so much time investigating this area that I have a tendency to agree with him. He has serious problems with, first of all, the construction of ships. He talks about double hulls, but he's not so convinced that double hulls are the answer so much as better propulsion units. I'm advised that most of these oil tankers are simply a long steel skin with one motor, one screw in the water, very difficult to start, very difficult to stop, very difficult to manoeuvre. It's been characterized by David Anderson to me as a big, long balloon floating in the water, full of oil, with a skin that thin and very poor propulsion equipment. He would suggest that we first of all double the horsepower, have double screws and perhaps bow thrusters, and that would make the ships far more maneuverable. That, no doubt, could have prevented the Alaska oil spill, the Exxon Valdez spill, because the ship, as we know, diverted because of an ice pack and then ran aground on a reef. Probably its inability to manoeuvre is what caused it to hit that reef.

That appears to be where David Anderson is focusing, and I think it's the correct focus: prevention in this case, and ensuring that regulations go to our federal government and that our American friends make the same representations to their federal government with respect to maritime shipping regula-

[ Page 8156 ]

tions, construction methodology, personnel practices, navigational aids.... That's the most important thing that will come out of David Anderson's report; at least my preliminary discussions with him would indicate that that's where his focus is.

There's no question, Mr. Member, that we have to investigate all of the technology in terms of cleanup, and we are doing that. As I said, we have received literally dozens of suggestions: some a bit bizarre, some valid, sincere and amounting to a considerable investment on behalf of the proponent. We're investigating all of them. I do thank the member for that observation, and I can assure him that we are looking at all of that material very closely.

MR. CASHORE: I can agree with the minister about some of the submissions being a bit bizarre. But I would like to say that while I agree that the major effort should go into prevention, crisis intervention is almost equally important and requires a tremendous amount of research and input. Having said that, I would like to turn for a moment to another topic. We may come back to some of this later.

Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the Expo soils. Perhaps the best way into this would be to refer to Hansard of June 8, when I asked a question of the Minister of Environment. I pointed out that: "On June 1, during the minister's absence, the acting Minister of Environment told this House that the province would assume complete responsibility for cleaning up the toxic soil removed from the Expo site and would seek to recover costs from responsible parties if this dumping was unauthorized. Yesterday the minister told this House that the persons who removed those toxic soils would be responsible." Then I asked: "Does this mean that neither you, Mr. Minister, nor the BCEC gave permission for the contractors to haul away and dump this toxic soil?"

To that you answered: "We're both right. I'm trying to sort this one through. Since we have allegations only of the soil being contaminated and that it was known to be contaminated by the person who removed it, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment further until those allegations are proven or disproven. We're making an assumption about a mystery area at this point."

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I then went on to ask a supplementary. I asked the minister if he gave permission for the dumping of Expo soils at Westwood, at the foot of Penzance Drive in Vancouver harbour — I think Penzance Drive is in Burnaby, actually — and at other locations around the lower mainland. To that, in typical fashion, the minister responded: "No, I wouldn't have. I was Deputy Speaker during those days." So then I rephrased the question and asked if the Ministry of Environment gave permission, and the minister took that question as notice.

I would like to ask the minister if he would now be willing to give the answer to that question: did the Ministry of Environment, did a ministry of environment or did his ministry give permission for the dumping of Expo soils at Westwood, at the foot of Penzance Drive in Vancouver harbour and at other locations around the lower mainland? I'd appreciate it if he would take each one of those cited locations as requiring an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the member, we're having to do some research here into the practices involved during the construction phase in False Creek. The ministry was not involved in the approval of soils dumped at that time, because we had been assured by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, or it was the understanding, that only clean fill and excavation rubble was being landfilled from the Expo site. Ocean dumping went on, and that may or may not have contained more contaminated material. That was done under permit, under the Ocean Dumping Control Act, as I explained to the member last month, with federal approval.

So we did not permit any contaminated soils to leave the Expo site for any landfill site in those Expo-building years. Since then, though, we have been investigating the material. We're looking at invoicing. We're looking at hauling records — as best we can find them — from the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation and from other Crown corporations involved in the False Creek development, and we are doing some testing. We have found at the Westwood site some higher hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contamination, but that could be just due to the presence of some asphalt in the fill. We haven't quite determined on that. But we are acting in an advisory capacity to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and we are enforcing our own regulations in this respect. We do now have regulations, which we didn't have in place in 1983-84-85, for this type of material. So simply to enforce our own regulations, we are now investigating the material that may have come out of that site and areas in which it may have been dumped.

Mr. Member, I can advise you and the committee that I'm going to be leaving the assembly for about two minutes and that my good colleague the first member for Vancouver South is going to tell us of a very exciting venture in oil-spill equipment which he is familiar with. I will return shortly.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be only if he gets recognized by the Chair. There being no one else standing, would the first member for Vancouver South continue.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, one of the great tragedies of this assembly is the number of times you have to repeat to the opposition members things said by the minister. We do these things so that they will get a better grasp on what happens in the province of British Columbia, get a better handle on how things are handled by the ministers and the government per

[ Page 8157 ]

se, and in the process get a little better grip on their jobs as members of the loyal opposition.

I spoke briefly about some of the technology coming into the province with respect to picking up oil on the ocean surface; it could even be used on lakes for that matter. We have vessels now... Incidentally, there's a lot of history to them. We have one vessel in the province of British Columbia that is capable of being converted into a vessel that can pick oil off the surface of the ocean. It is a hopper dredge, to be specific. The principle is quite simple: the oil is scooped up by a big mechanism on the front and dropped into the hopper. The oil is lifted off the top, the water is taken off the bottom, and when the vessel is filled, it is taken to shore and the cargo discharged. It's not a difficult process, actually; it's a really simple one.

For the benefit of the members who haven't spent much time looking into this particular subject, I can assure them that it's quite common to have vessels like this plying European waters. Indeed, there is one Russian vessel totally dedicated to this task, whether or not there happens to be any oil on the water. So that will give you some indication of how serious it can be.

In the English Channel, I think there are some 300 vessels a day going through, which presents a significant hazard. These vessels are of course monitored very carefully. We had some quite significant spills in the Channel area, and that is why ships like this Russian vessel were built.

The B.C. version is a little different, in that it will be a convertible vessel, if you want to put it that way. It can be used for oil-spill cleanup, or it can be used simply for its designated function, which is that of a hopper dredge. It's not a bad idea. It will provide an opportunity for the governments of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and British Columbia to use this vessel as and when needed. As I said, it should get us out of the garbage-bag mentality. Why wait until the product gets to the shore? Let's pick it up when it's on the surface of the ocean, so that we can prevent some of the damage to wildlife, to the shore and to all the other things affected by these rather unpleasant oil spills.

I could carry on at great length, Mr. Chairman, but having seen that the committee probably wants to pass this particular thing, I'll just take my chair.

MR. BARNES: I have a very brief question I wanted to canvass with the committee. First, though, I want to commend the government for hiring a former MLA as a consultant on oil spills, who is also a former Member of Parliament who spoke quite forcefully and knowledgeably about the dangers of oil spills at a time when few would listen. I just want to say that maybe there is some poetic justice in the irony of the situation. Certainly Mr. David Anderson is infinitely qualified to advise the government, and it sounds as though the government is paying attention to what he has to say. With that, let's hope sanity will prevail in the future, because oil spills are a serious danger and threat to the future of all. It's an issue we must address cooperatively and with a common concern for our survival and our future.

Mr. Chairman, I just had one specific question getting back to the Expo site and the toxic soils which were removed and dumped on various sites throughout the lower mainland, including Westwood, Point Atkinson, the foot of No. 6 Road in Richmond and some sites near the ocean. You've explained that the federal government was responsible for giving permits for ocean dumping. Was any of the soil dumped on the site now called Portside Park at the foot of Main Street in the East End just next to Canada Place? That site is also referred to as Crab Beach, which I'm sure most of us know as Create a Real Available Beach. It was fought for quite vigorously by a number of local organizations in order to provide a park for the downtown east side. Most notable was the work of Don Larson, who has been a spokesman down there, Jim Green of the Downtown East Side Residents' Association, Steve Learey and Sue Harris; you can name all of the people who have been working in that area from the Carnegie Community Centre as one of their headquarters.

But there is some concern. They are quite shocked that after all this work and all of the negotiations between the city, the Vancouver Port Corporation and others to create this park at great expense of blood, sweat and tears, they now find that there is a possibility of threats to the youth that may be using it, to the people that may be coming there.

As you know, it's a destination park. It is a very beautiful site, one that the city can be proud of. It's an absolutely panoramic place, one of the nicest parks, perhaps, in the lower mainland, although it certainly is not as large or as accessible as we would like to have had it, mainly because of the difficulty of getting to it.

Nonetheless, could you clarify the situation with respect to any danger of toxic waste having been dumped on the land. There are two problems, I guess. One is the ocean, the water part, and the other is landfill. There is just consternation on that question. We want some verification whether there is anything to be concerned about. There is every reason to be concerned, but we don't know if it's valid. Could you tell us if any Expo soils were in fact dumped on that site?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I would just like to thank the member for his comments about David Anderson. It is kind of him to say that. David Anderson, as the member indicated, was a Member of Parliament and was a member of this Legislative Assembly representing the Liberal Party — and did a remarkably good job. He was also, of course, a passionate speaker on concerns about the environment, particularly concerns about oil shipments.

One hates to have a disaster of this magnitude force the government to have someone like David Anderson come on as a commissioner, but I guess, if we can look at any good side of this, we certainly have someone who is uniquely qualified in North America to do the job. We have a Member of

[ Page 8158 ]

Parliament, someone well versed in politics, trained in the law, and really steeped in this whole situation for a good part of the 1970s. To have a talent of that capacity and that knowledge in dealing with this issue and to have that a B.C. person is good, to say the least. We are fortunate that we have David Anderson here to assist us in this issue, and I am sure his work and his deliberations are going to be productive for us.

To the member's specific question with respect to Crab Beach, I am looking at all the information here that lists the allegations of where Expo soils may have been taken. They are allegations only, and none of them point to any knowledge of soils going to Crab Beach from the False Creek site. The media report has said there may be some at the helijet site, which, as you know, is a bit distant from the Crab Beach area. We are investigating the shipments and that movement now, but we have nothing to substantiate the allegations that have been made that contaminated soils went....

We did not issue any permits for land filling of excavated materials from the Expo site. The ocean dumping, by the way, was done well off the coast of Vancouver Island, so there would be no concern of ocean dumping contaminating the water at Crab Beach. This was done off Bamfield, as I am advised, out in the Pacific Ocean and probably at some depth Again, that is permitted under the Ocean Dumping Control Act, so the dumping was probably some distance out to sea. In any event, to get to the member's question, we did not issue any permits for land filling from the Expo site. We cannot track any movements to Crab Beach, but we are investigating all records now with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to see if we can identify any shipments that may have occurred without our knowledge during that construction phase.

MR. BARNES: So far, so good, Mr. Chairman. I am encouraged very much by the minister's remarks, because obviously, if there is any fear, even though it's apprehensive, about danger to health of those who may come to visit the Crab Beach park, we should be concerned. I am encouraged by your assurances that to your knowledge — I say to your knowledge; those are my words — you are going to double-check by reviewing all of the records to ensure that there were no permits to dump on that site at Crab Beach.

Chances are you won't find any, but you can appreciate that until we know for certain, proof positive, that beach is safe, there is that consternation and concern, and I certainly wouldn't want to encourage people to be totally unmindful that there could be some risk. This is the job of those advocates down there who have written to me and to the Leader of the Opposition and others expressing concern and fear that if there is the remotest possibility of this happening, we want to know.

I would urge the minister to delegate some official way in which we can determine exactly, for sure, that there is absolutely no danger whatsoever. It would be a real tragedy if we found that people had contacted some kind of substance inadvertently and years down the down the road were finding that it resulted in some risk to their health. None of us, I'm sure, would want that to happen.

Could the minister perhaps respond again with respect to any immediate plans he may have to delegate some kind of investigation specifically at the Crab Beach site to give us that extra assurance that all possible effort has been made; that all tests have been taken that are available, even though there may be only a one-in-a-thousand chance of something happening. Because of the nature of the park, the fact that it is going to be frequented by young people and unsuspecting guests coming there, we want to be able to promote the park with absolute confidence that it's safe.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We can ascertain how Crab Beach was constructed and what fill was put in there, if any. We should have a pretty good handle on where it came from. I'll look at that on behalf of the member and endeavour to get back to him as quickly as I can with that information. I do respect his concern. It's a beautiful little piece of property. it really is a little gem in that part of town and quite pretty. I drive by there from time to time when I go in to catch the helijet; I know what he's speaking of. It's a real credit to that community. I'll endeavour to find out what I can on behalf of the member.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the minister, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to make sure that I understand the answer that the minister gave. Can we take it from that, then, that the Ministry of Environment will arrange for the testing of the soils in that park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not at the outset. What we'll do is examine the landfill practices that were in place for the construction of that park, if any. Then we will make a decision on whether or not we should test soils. I think it would be premature to say much more until we've looked at the paper trail. That's the way we're investigating all these concerns now, as I said earlier, with respect to all the sites that have been mentioned that may have taken Expo soils.

They are only allegations at this point. We haven't been able to find anything out by way of permit or by records we've found that can substantiate the allegations that have been made. We are investigating the paper trail, and we will include Crab Beach in that investigation. If the paper trail causes us some alarm, we will certainly do testing such as we have done at the Westwood site.

MR. CASHORE: Paper can get lost. I understand that in this situation it has been reported that, if not lost, it has been misplaced or is difficult to track down. We're dealing with a public health issue that

[ Page 8159 ]

relates to the environment. It's a difficult situation because we might not be able to prove it by the paper trail if the paper trail is no longer in existence. To say it will be ascertained whether or not such soils actually were deposited there.... That may, presumably, not be borne out in terms of the paper trail.

If I can interpret what the minister is saying, I think he's saying that if there's a gap in the paper trail, then they would consider testing. I would just like to encourage him along that track. As the second member for Vancouver Centre pointed out, there are a lot of people who are really concerned about that. This could be a situation, as in other instances, where the paper trail runs out.

I would like to agree with the minister that Crab Beach is a nice little jewel of a park. One of the things he will notice when he travels by there on the way to the helijet is that very few people are there. One of the reasons is the difficulty of access. While I realize, Mr. Chairman, that I'm out of order in making that point, it's something that we in this House should work to encourage the federal government and municipal authorities to correct.

With regard to the soils, if I understand the minister, he's saying that no permits have been given to transport those soils; he's not saying that soils were not transported from the Expo site. It seems to me that the minister is saying that no permits were given to remove soils. Is it correct that soils may indeed have been removed but simply without the benefit of a provincial government permit?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Permits were not issued and nor were they requested, I guess, from the provincial Minister of Environment for land filling of excavated materials from the Expo site. Where we had identified contaminated soils, they were dumped under permits under the ocean dumping act and taken to ocean dumping sites, not landfill sites.

So our preliminary conclusion is that we are dealing with allegations only. However, because the issues have been raised and allegations have been made, we are investigating all of the records that we can find from the Expo corporation to ascertain whether or not toxic materials might have been inappropriately moved somewhere else. As I told you, we've done some preliminary testing at Westwood and have found some trace polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; but we suspect it could be old asphalt pavement, which of course is made from oil. We are doing further testing there. That's where we are at this point. As further information is either proved or not proved, as evidence is found to be correct or incorrect, we will be advising all concerned, because we are a regulatory ministry and we cannot allow contaminated soils to be present, under our own legislation, without remedy.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the testing that was done at the Westwood site — and I appreciate that it was done — the minister says trace elements of PAHs were found there. What was the measurement of those trace elements? The minister, with the assistance of his staff, I think would have to put that in parts per trillion or parts per million, or whatever the breakdown is. For this to have meaning to those of us who are lay people on this issue, we also want to know the government's standard against which these trace elements would be measured to say whether or not they would cause the minister to want to take further remedial action.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the test holes done at Westwood, we drilled five and found one to show trace hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Again, the initial conclusion was that it could be the result of old pavement being thrown in there. However, we are doing further testing. I can't give you a number with respect to parts per million, trillion or whatever it might be in terms of the test result, because I don't have that information available to me. We are testing those drill holes now and presumably will be doing other holes.

With respect to our standards, they are the standards we published about a month ago with respect to the Expo soils, which will become the British Columbia standard for contaminated soils and the level of toxicity you can accept, depending on what use you are going to have for those soils. From those numbers, you decide on your use or you decide on your remedy.

That information is public. I don't think it would serve the committee well to go over it again, because I don't think any of us in this room would understand it. They are standards that have been put together by the Ministry of Environment using a lot of the good work done by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers using EPA and some European standards. All the good research we could find we brought together into a set of B.C. standards.

The people who have reviewed it independently of the Ministry of Environment — Dr. David Boyes, for example, if I am not mistaken — agree that they are excellent standards. They are as high as could be expected anywhere, and they deal with a variety of problems that we would encounter in dealing with contaminated soils. They are comprehensive, high quality standards and deal with a variety of uses of the soils, depending on the level of contamination or the type of use you would put it to.

That's as much information as I can provide to the member, but I think it's also as much as either he or I or the rest of the committee would understand. As I said, we have endorsement from independent experts who have reviewed our standards, and we are advised that they are as good as they could be.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister — I realize he can't do it now — to take the test that has been done so far at Westwood and compare it with the standards that he has just referred to, and bring back just how that relates to the standards that are apparently in existence. We may come back to that part of it later.

[ Page 8160 ]

I want to come back to the issue of the ministry not issuing permits for the soil to be removed. Could the minister tell me if he agrees with me that soil was removed, at least to the location of Westwood? Assuming that soil was removed from the Expo site, was any permission given? And if so, by whom?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The soil that was removed was clean fill, and as such was not subject to permit or inspection. The soil that was deemed to be toxic was oceamiumped. We did not give a permit, because there was no reason to; all fill was deemed to be clean. The fill not deemed to be clean was oceamiumped and permitted by the federal government under the Ocean Dumping Control Act.

MS. MARZARI: I want to ask a few questions in relation to your role as minister of state. As you are probably aware, because you've been in the House when I've done this, I've been conducting a small survey of ministers of state, trying to ascertain what their roles are, what they think they are doing, and what in fact they are doing. You've heard the questions. I think I'll put them to you in order.

My first question is: to what extent does the minister have responsibility for actively dealing with corporations or individuals with business ideas or problems, and helping those individuals solve those problems? Most particularly, the question is: to what extent do you get involved with the hands-on business of defining and tracking down actual programs of assistance for those individuals who are endeavouring to create economic development in the regions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is the role — just what the member has identified. The staff that I have available in the ministry do that on a daily basis. As I indicated yesterday in my opening remarks, five of us did become regional ministers of economic development. We have that responsibility. We are considered part of that ministry. As a matter of fact, that's what has caused some of the confusion: "What are you — a Minister of Environment or a minister of state?" I'm still a bit schizophrenic on that myself.

That aside, we have staff and resources available to us. just to give you a rundown of what I've done, guess the most notable economic development project I was involved with was the FMC project. It's an $80 million hydrogen peroxide plant located in Prince George. That was a large one. There have been smaller ones that we've been able to assist or at least work with as ministers of regional development.

The Williams Lake air study would be another good example. We are marketing that study now. It was very interesting. It has really intrigued me and opened up my mind to what environmental studies can do. In fact, they become marketing studies. In this case, as Minister of Environment, I commissioned a wood waste study with respect to co-generation, using wood waste to generate electricity. When was finished with the environmental study, which was done by an engineering firm, I found out that what I had in fact done was a marketing study. We now have two proponents knocking on our doors and coming to Hydro with respect to building an operation. It's been a very good exercise.

[4:45]

I guess those have been the two most notable ones. We do have a responsibility — at least I see myself in my role as Minister of State for Cariboo as being a regional minister of economic development. I've been doing that to the best of my ability. I have a staff person in Williams Lake, Bill Wicken. He operates out of the government agent's office there. He's a very good employee. He's a retired Ministry of Forests employee, and he's just an outstanding guy. As a matter of fact, I've had two gentlemen in Williams Lake. The one before Bill Wicken was also a retired forestry employee; his name was John Szauer. He began the work for me in Williams Lake and then went on to another private venture, and Bill Wicken came to work for me. It's worked out very well.

In terms of Prince George applications, I pretty well handle them myself out of my Prince George constituency office with my executive assistant. I also have the benefit of a regional development corporation in Prince George, which is owned and operated by the regional district. In that case, not wanting to duplicate, I simply see the senior staff person of that corporation — his name is Dale McMann — as being my arm. We work very closely together. I found him to be most productive. I've saved the taxpayer a bit of money and I think some duplication on that, because Dale is a very positive person.

I'm going to have to expand the office in Prince George. There's clearly enough work for two when you consider the size of the area and the fact that Bill Wicken in the Cariboo really has his plate full with the economic development there. By the time the summer is over, no doubt I will have a person in Prince George to look after the Prince George-Valemont-McBride-Mackenzie area in terms of economic development.

That's essentially where we are. I don't know whether I've answered your question. I hope I have. Clearly I am a regional minister of economic development; all of us are. We work very closely with the Ministry of Regional Development, my colleague from Burnaby. That staff is our staff, if you will. We make proposals to them, and they act on our behalf. In my mind it's worked out to be a very good system. At least, I've found it very productive in the Cariboo.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister, two of your colleagues have suggested that basically one is a team player and one is a listener. One got the impression from listening to both of them that they were people who collected proposals in the field and brought them home to the senior minister of state for economic development, I think the title is. I asked them specifically, and I ask you: to what extent do you and your staff have a hands-on working relationship with existing legislation that may assist with venture capital programs, actual subsidy programs, tax expenditure programs, low-interest loan programs? Do

[ Page 8161 ]

your staff in the field have a hands-on relationship to those programs, or are they pro forma gatherers who bring the information back to Victoria for decisions to be made here?

I put that to you because I'm trying to develop a process line of reasoning. You may have very adequate and competent people in the field, and I believe you probably do, especially if you're working closely with a regional development corporation in Prince George. You probably have a real sense of what local needs are, and those people are in the field with a budget, I would assume, at the regional district level, actively out looking at what priorities might be. But I'm talking about your own competent staff: are they capable of making their deals in the field, or does it come back to Victoria to be vetted, screened, looked at, prioritized by the senior minister on your team?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I kind of get what you're getting at. I guess you want to peg us as being just message carriers or whatever, to imply that characterization, which you may attempt to do if you wish.

As I said, I have competent staff in the field. I have a regional development officer here in Victoria, Chris Stanley-Jones, who is part of that Ministry of Regional Development. I consider the staff in the ministry — the financial analysts and those people I work with — as being part of the ministry I'm with in that ministry of state sense. I don't see myself or my immediate staff as message carriers. I guess we could be called team players, but I don't see anything pejorative or wrong in that. I see us as part of a very effective operation, and the results of our delivery to date, particularly in the Cariboo, have been quite impressive. I make no apologies for it. We worked out very well. We do deal with loan guarantees, with all of the items that are available from the Ministry of Regional Development, because we are in fact officers and ministers of that ministry.

Without foreshadowing a bill that I happen to know is coming around, there's going to be a sort of statutory statement about what the ministry does; but that would be anticipating a future debate, and perhaps we could discuss it at that time. I can tell you that we're very much part of what goes on. I am involved in everything that happens in the Cariboo area. I am ably abetted and assisted by my good colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), since your member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) won't have anything to do with us. So the two of us really look after everything and ensure that economic development in the Cariboo continues.

I don't know if you heard my remarks the other day, but when it comes to economic development, we see social development as really the kingpin at this point. This is why one of the first things I did as minister of state was become very closely and financially involved — to the tune of $100,000 — with a university study. Jobs, job creation, industry: we've already got that. We've gone about as far as we can go. We have the H202 plant. We have sawmills, pulp mills, chemical plants. We have good industry. In Prince George we have the highest per capita salary in the province. What we're interested in now is a better quality, a better style of life, and more social amenities. That's why the first thing I did as minister of state — as a matter of fact, unanimously endorsed by my board of directors.... My board of directors, by the way, are the mayors of the seven communities in the Cariboo development region and the two chairmen of the regional district.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the MLA for Cariboo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And the MLA for Cariboo. Right.

That's why it's so productive.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Prince George North is always invited.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, always invited, but never comes.

Anyway, we've seen that the kingpin of economic development, if there is anything, is in fact an improvement in the quality of life in our area. We've done the good stuff like the wood waste study that I talked about, which is going to result in a mammoth project. We've done the hydrogen peroxide plant and other lesser initiatives. But what we're really looking at is the university study. We're doing a major health study now. Transportation and highways: we have done that. We have looked at improving the quality of life in the Cariboo, and that is our first concern. That's clearly the message that comes from our board of directors; it's what they want to see. This is very clearly a bottom-up movement in terms of the way we manage it.

That's our first priority, Madam Member. It isn't economic development; it's social development. From social development will come economic development.

Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: I have one more question in my survey, Mr. Minister. I'm pleased to hear that you are personally responsible for all these grand studies; that your million dollar budget is being liberally distributed throughout the ministry — $680,000 for you? — and that the money is being spent on appropriate studies which are beginning to meld the economic and social dynamic of the community you serve.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, I'm praising all I can here.

My real question, and what I'm trying to home in on here, is not to necessarily pre-empt Bill 74, which was put on the floor today and which might answer some of my questions more clearly. What I am asking is the level to which you as a minister of state, with all the accoutrements of that office.... I don't know whether it might mean extra salary on top of your

[ Page 8162 ]

minister's salary, but for some of your colleagues it does mean an additional stipend. I'm really asking to what extent you are more than a staff person. In other words, a regional staff operating through regional districts, or a good relationship between a properly functioning regional district and a ministry, or any other ministries, might accomplish what you have set out to accomplish. It could work that way.

When we take you as a minister or your colleagues as ministers of state and put them into a central decision-making role, to what extent are those decisions being made by you? For example — and this is the question I've put to your colleagues — do you actually sign contracts with small ventures, large ventures, companies that you are in fact assisting? Do you sign contracts under existing legislation? Are the contracts that you sign limited in dollar figures? In other words, are you allowed to sign contracts under $50,000 at the local level, but you must bring them back to Victoria if they are over $50,000? I choose the number out of the air. Is your signature on contracts, or are those contracts signed by the senior minister of economic development? Do you as minister get involved in the day-to-day business of making deals with the corporations, the companies and the agencies that you serve?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the fundamental difference between a minister of state and even the most senior staff person is that we sit at the cabinet table. That really is what it's all about. Unless you're there you're not part of the decision-making process, because that is where the decisions are made. That's why it's essential to have ministerial representation from all regions of the province.

Secondly, do I sign contracts? Yes, I do. What is the limit? There is an FAA or Treasury Board limit: $100,000 has to go to cabinet and to Treasury Board for approval; under that, it's a ministerial statement. For example, the health study was $160,000, if I'm not mistaken. In that case I signed it, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) signed it, and Treasury Board had to give its approval. That's the Coopers and Lybrand contract: $161,070. It did take Treasury Board approval. But that's standard. I would have to do that as Minister of Environment, as would any other minister. Over $100,000 does require Treasury Board approval.

The university study, for example, I don't think took Treasury Board approval, because there were four of us in on it. I was in for 70, and then the ministers of state for Northeast, Omineca and the Coast region up to Prince Rupert were partners in at ten each. So I don't think that one did require Treasury Board. But we all signed it. Anyway, that's the mechanism. But $100,000 is the threshold that Treasury Board has in place. We have to live with that just like any other minister does.

In terms of signing the contracts: yes, we do sign the contracts. As far as I know, I've signed every one I've dealt with — university health study, transportation study, all those expenditures.

MS. MARZARI: Signing contracts for budgetary expenditures out of your own budget — your $714,000 — is one thing; signing the health study or signing the university study is one thing. I'm talking about as minister of state for economic development or for a particular region, when you are in fact dealing with corporations, companies, that come to you for some tax relief or for some assistance or for some expansion problem. Are you capable of using the existing legislation, as a minister, to in effect assist those companies, corporations? Can you sign contracts? Those kind of contracts, not your $100,000 or your $300,000 for studies; I'm talking about the meat of economic development here, which is what you in fact give to corporations to assist them in their planning or in their expansion.

[5:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I quite honestly can't answer that, Madam Member. I just don't know the answer there. I'm trying to think of other contracts that I've signed and what they have been all about. In the case where we have to sign Treasury Board submissions — final contracts — I couldn't quite give you the details. However, I don't think it really matters; as I said, the important thing is that you are at the cabinet table when these decisions to proceed or not to proceed are made, and you are offering your voice at that table on behalf of your region. That's the critical thing.

In terms of signing the contracts, I'll find that out for you. I'll find out how far we go or don't go. I guess it's important to you for whatever reason, but it's not really important to me.

MS. MARZARI: I would suggest that it is important to you and your fellow ministers of state, because the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) suggested to me when I asked him about these contracts and about where the money goes that the ministers of state were in charge of these dollars. My real question comes down to where the buck stops and who is in charge. If the ministers of state aren't in charge, and the Minister of Finance isn't in charge, I think that we have a lot of room to discuss who is in charge and where in fact these dollars do come from and who is responsible for their expenditure. So I don't think it's not a moot question, and I will pursue it as we proceed to Bill 74.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am in charge of what happens within that development region, in consultation with this board that I have put in place. Administration is carried out by Chris Stanley-Jones, as I mentioned, and also by staff of the Ministry of Environment. As you know, my deputy minister has the powers of a deputy minister with respect to administration of the ministry of state for the Cariboo, and so does my assistant deputy minister, John O'Riordan, who is sitting with me now. They do have that typical deputy and assistant deputy minister signing authority. That's there as well. I can appreciate you are going to have more questions during the

[ Page 8163 ]

debate of a bill which I won't discuss further, and I'm sure that the answers will be forthcoming to you.

If we're going to close on this business of the Cariboo development region, I just want to summarize, once again, what a remarkably enlightening experience it's been for me to be in this position. I really have to commend to the committee the good advice I've had from the board. My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), before assuming a position on the executive council, was a parliamentary secretary for the Cariboo development region. He and I worked on this, beginning in late fall of 1987, in terms of how we would put the whole thing together. I think it has worked out very well.

We have the mayor of Mackenzie, Bill Whalley; the mayor of Prince George, John Backhouse; Steve Kolida from McBride; Norm McNee from Valemount; Mike Pearce from Quesnel; Ray Woods from Williams Lake; Donna Barnett from 100 Mile House; Chairman Colin Kinsley from the Regional District of Fraser Fort George and Chairman Darlyne Brecknock from the Cariboo Regional District.

It has been a very productive group. We have had our teething problems from time to time, but I think it has worked out well. The results are starting to come in now. We have some very strong supporters out there for this initiative, so I am gratified at that. It has really been a good exercise in grass-roots democracy, decentralization and the ability to recognize what the regions want.

If you think it through, there is no way we could have entered into the university study if we hadn't had this mechanism to assist us. I know you people weren't very happy about the million dollars that was given to the ministers, but if it weren't for that type of funding — if it weren't for the initiative of the Premier — the university society study would have been stopped in its tracks, because there is no way we could have garnered that type of revenue for that type of initiative.

Fortunately we had the foresight of the Premier, who sent us out with these budgets and the determination to talk to the regional people and to the folks who live in our area, and understand what they want — no dictates from Victoria as to what to do, but in fact to be a movement out there that listened and responded. In spite of the fact that we are characterized by some as being rural, unsophisticated rednecks, we now have a university just about in place because of rural, regional initiatives, and I am quite proud of it. I make no apologies for what we've done, and I will forever defend that concept, because it has been very good for our area.

MS. EDWARDS: I assume we have been talking about the grass roots and so on that the minister wants to talk about. I want to talk about grass roots as well, and Crown range management.

I was pleased to know that the Ministry of Forests was doing a review of Crown range management procedures and policies, and that in fact the ministry promised that they would come out with that in fairly reasonable time. It's been quite a while since they began. I don't know whether that's reasonable or not, because I haven't had a chance to question the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker).

However, it's very clear that the Ministry of Forests does not represent all the users of Crown rangeland. The Ministry of Environment is very closely involved with what should happen on Crown rangeland. I would like to hear from the minister, as succinctly as he can manage, what his ministry's input has been into, first of all, the Ministry of Forests' report and review of Crown range management; and next, what his ministry's input was into the Closkey report on Crown range use, which came out of the Kootenays — specifically, the East Kootenay — and which, of course, went to a minister of state, which means that nothing can happen to it until some other minister does something about it. That report has stalled somewhere.

I am interested in knowing whether your ministry is having some input into range management in connection with a discussion of the Closkey report as well as the range management review of the Ministry of Forests.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is an interministry review of range issues, and of course we are very much a part of that. We have input into a variety of issues, wildlife and water being, of course, the most notable, because they come within the purview of the Ministry of Environment.

I could be more specific about what our involvement has been in various areas or with various species or issues if you want to ask me specific questions. But I can tell you that we are a major player in that interministry committee, as I'm sure you know and as you have alluded to. If you have specific questions with respect to that, I would be more than pleased to provide the answers to you.

With respect to the Closkey report, it has just now been seen. It goes to cabinet. I don't think it's productive to tell you when cabinet would review it, because I am not at liberty to report on cabinet agendas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The CV of who — Closkey? He's an engineer, isn't he? He seems like a good researcher. I have seen the report. I will reserve my comments until I see what comes out of cabinet publicly, of course, which I will have input into.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, Mr. Minister, you suggest that it was interministerial and that therefore there was a lot of input. I put similar questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who has some interest in Crown range, I would have thought. He said that his ministry was being represented by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. I was amazed and concerned and I probed, Mr. Minister, to the other minister, and he said that that's all they're doing. The Federation of Agriculture is doing the

[ Page 8164 ]

input into the range study on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. I would like you to assure me that that's not happening on behalf of the Ministry of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll give you that assurance. We are involved at the staff level: staff and officials of the Ministry of Environment. But just to make sure that we're not misleading you as well, we also have constituent expertise, from our point of view, and in this case the B.C. Wildlife Federation is involved. I can't speak for the Minister of Agriculture. I can understand why he would have that federation with him represented. I can't speak as to whether or not it was wise for him or not wise for him to have his officials there or not there, but I can assure you that in the case of our ministry, we did have officials sitting on that committee.

MS. EDWARDS: The issue was not whether or not you had been in contact with a group; I would expect very much that you would take the input of a group and I would expect the Minister of Agriculture would have taken the input from his group. The question was: who is doing the input? In fact, when it comes to a decision that I assume is going to be made for the Ministry of Forests by the ministry personnel for range management, which is under the direction of a Mr. Ray Addison, I assume that certainly there will be some input from the regions. I would expect that, and I'm pleased to hear that you're getting it from the associations, but I hope that the ministry itself put forward some ideas.

Certainly in my experience, in the feedback I get consistently from the people in my area who have some concern about the Crown range and from those who have some concern about the wildlife for which your ministry is responsible, there seem to be a number of issues that need to be addressed as far as Crown range is concerned. I think that there are some concerns and there have been some suggestions that in order for the wildlife needs on Crown range to be recognized, there are a number of needs.

I don't know whether the minister is familiar enough that he could tell me what his ministry's input was into that. What does the minister believe is necessary? For example, I have said on a number of occasions that we need more and better inventory, better mapping, some capability studies and some real cost-benefit studies to be done, so that we can do some balancing as to who and what particular animal — if you want to put it that way — or human, I mean, as well as ungulates and domestic cows and so on, should be using the range in certain places.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I'm curious to know what the minister had to say when the proposal was put forward by the Ministry of Forests on tree-farm licences whereby the management of a lot of the range would then go to forest companies; forest industry, in fact. I would like to know whether the minister had any of those rather specific recommendations to make as far as Crown range is concerned for the benefit of the wildlife.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to clarify the position on input, we had input. We also asked our major constituent, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for their input. Further, the way we circulated our input for this task force throughout the Ministry of Environment was that we went to all regional managers and asked them for their input on specific cases. Ray Demarchi from your area was quite involved, as you can well imagine, and a series of recommendations went through.

We take the view that on Crown graze there should be multi-use, that in fact we can't protect it totally for wildlife habitat, and that we have to serve the interests of all British Columbia. So I think we take a balanced view of that. I don't doubt that a bit of a bias towards wildlife is bound to come from this ministry, and that would have to be tempered against input from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. But we would have a mixed-use input with a slight wildlife and habitat enhancement bias; that's just natural. But the input was there, the input was regional, and we feel that our contribution to that task force was quite constructive.

[5:15]

MS. EDWARDS: The minister is not being very specific. You say that you have a bias for wildlife. Certainly I would expect that. I don't know if there were any specific points that the minister thought perhaps should be made to the Minister of Forests, who in fact tends to have a bias as well. That bias happens to be to letting Crown range revert to forest growth, when in fact the Crown range itself has been decreasing by... I won't say leaps and bounds, but it has been steadily and regularly decreasing in size. In fact, the access to Crown range, the ability to use Crown range has been seriously affected by that activity, how the range managers of the Ministry of Forests — it isn't even a range branch any more; it's only part of another branch — manage the forests. I understand that there have been some concerns, and I wonder if the minister had made any suggestions about how an animal-unit month is calculated, and whether an animal-unit month might be the same thing it was ten years ago. Are we using the same method of calculation? What are we doing about range management?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am quite brilliant, but I am not a mind-reader. The member has to be more specific in the questions posed to me. One question I will answer is that I am the last guy you'd want determining what an animal-unit month should be. We want to go to people in the field, the biologists who understand this situation. I would love to give input, but I am sure it would be wrong. That's why we have trained specialists to give us advice. If I gave that input, it wouldn't be very kind to this Legislative Assembly nor to the animals.

[ Page 8165 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I guess the question, then, is: did your ministry make any input to the new range management plan about animal-unit month determination, about the inventory available or about the scale of maps available — those three things? Let me lay those out for you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer to all three questions is yes, and not just on a Victoria basis, but we canvassed all regions and had their input as we made those suggestions. As I said, in the case of your area, Ray Demarchi and other officials in that region would have had substantial input. As a matter of fact, he probably had more than anyone else, if I know Ray. I am sure the member can appreciate that.

So the answer to all your three questions is yes, the input was regional and, in our estimation, the best that could be provided for our purposes.

MS. EDWARDS: I, too, would expect that Mr. Demarchi would have good input, since he is an internationally recognized wildlife habitat specialist. I will leave it at that and hope that Mr. Demarchi made his points as well as he could.

I have some constituents who have some questions about the ministry's attitude about game management areas; I believe that's what they are called. They were mentioned in the Closkey report. There were six or seven mentioned as recommended by Mr. Closkey in the report. There is considerable nervousness on the part of a number of ranchers in the area, because they feel that the Ministry of Environment — if they were given the option of managing any area such as Sheep Mountain or Pickering Hills — would in fact manage for single use.

I'm interested to know what the minister's response is, and I base this not on the Closkey report, which you have said you don't want to discuss. However, I understand there's at least one order-incouncil that has been sent — or is being sent — which would establish a game management area at Sheep Mountain, and I believe there may be another one. I want to know if the minister would respond to this concern of a number of ranchers. If the Ministry of Environment were to manage an area specifically called a game management area, would they manage for multiple use? My constituents have said that your ministry is not mandated to manage for multiple use. I don't know how that relates to the Ministry of Forests, but perhaps you would respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, without trying to duck the issue, I'll have to advise the committee that I cannot comment specifically on the recommendations of the Closkey report. Until such time as cabinet takes a public position on that, I have not seen the Closkey report for all intents and purposes. I hope the committee understands that. I will avoid any questions with respect to its recommendations.

However, with respect to general management philosophy, we advocate multiple use. We're faced with it every day, whether it be agricultural, forestry or mining activities. Any pressure on the land base is always a pressure on habitat management, and we deal with that every day. That's one of the responsibilities of our ministry, and one of the mandates of what we are to manage is wildlife. As I said earlier, we have a bias towards wildlife; we are supposed to have. We are the Ministry of Environment, and that is in our mandate. We have a bias towards habitat enhancement, and we say that without apology. Wildlife is very important to us. It is our mandate to manage, and I think we do very well. We really have an increasing population in most areas of the province, so obviously that record is good and is going to continue to stay good. But we don't deny that there can't be other uses within the province. And there is industrial, forest and agricultural development happening all the time; we just ensure that it's compatible with our purposes and with our mandate.

MS. EDWARDS: Maybe you don't have it at hand, but I just wonder if the minister could be more specific about what would be the management criteria for a game management area, such as we have been assured has been applied for the Sheep Mountain area, for example.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want it to go on the record that this answer has nothing to do with land or areas mentioned in the Closkey report, because I cannot under the responsibility as a member of the executive council comment on something that has yet to come to cabinet but will need cabinet approval before it sees the light of day. So I hope you understand that. Specifically our mandate is to manage for wildlife purposes, but we have to accept that there are other stresses, there are other pressures, there are other viable uses for land. We make our case known. Many other ministries, the resource ministries — Forests and Mines — say that we're far too difficult to deal with. But nevertheless we have a mandate to enhance wildlife in this province, to enhance the fishery, and we do that on every possible occasion, understanding, of course, that there is always the pressure for industrial development and uses of the land for other than straight wildlife purposes.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, just briefly on the Expo lands, given the answers that the minister has given that the standards are the standards that were set for the Expo lands — and these are the standards against which the measurement of the soil sample that was taken at Westwood would be measured. Assuming that they go through this painstaking process of following a paper trail which may peter out, and hoping that they will be testing all the lands where it is alleged that soils have been dumped, I want to ask the minister if the standards he is referring to for the Expo lands are going to be applied throughout the entire province. If that is the case, will he be putting these standards into regulations or into legislation?

[ Page 8166 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, I wanted to point out to the committee that these are not Expo 86 standards. These are British Columbia standards. They were adopted with the whole province in mind. They are not site specific; they are provincial specific.

As I said earlier, we found the best information and the best research we could find using EPA standards, CCREM standards, standards from Ontario and Quebec and in some cases European models and standards. From that we developed standards that we knew would be acceptable to the people of British Columbia. I guess more important is the soils remediation group which — as I have indicated earlier — is headed by Dr. David Boyes. When he saw our standards, he said they were very good. He has the qualifications to understand what we were getting at. He has agreed with them. They are B.C. standards and will be used to test this one hole we have found at the Westwood site.

These are all allegations we are dealing with right now. If there is a piece of pavement at the Westwood site, did it come from Expo? That's another question that has to be dealt with. The answer is probably not. We are dealing with a lot of allegations at this point. We are acting responsibly and doing the testing. We are using the standards that we have put in place. The regulations will be put in place soon, Mr. Member, in response to your other question.

In the final analysis, I can say that these are excellent standards developed in B.C. They are as good as one will find anywhere and certainly have been welcomed by those who are helping us deal with this very serious problem.

MR. CASHORE: When the minister refers to standards, given his last two or three sentences, it sounds as though he's saying that these standards are going to be put into regulations and applied throughout the province. I don't believe that we got the impression at the time these standards were brought forward that they were not site specific. Certainly the catalyst that resulted in the standards being set was the situation with the Expo lands, which continues to be a very serious problem.

One of the things I'd point out in the standards is that they place a lower standard on parks than on where housing would be built, and I would really question that. How can we justify placing a lower standard on parks where children play and have direct contact with the earth, where they touch it with their skin? That's where our children go to play, and yet the standards are not as high as those in the other areas. Given that further testing in park sites might result in the discovery of PAHs, as they have been discovered at the Westwood site — albeit in trace elements — they are still the number one toxic substance on the federal list in terms of danger. I would question there being a lesser standard where parks are involved.

[5:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is incorrect. The residential and park standards are identical.

MR. CASHORE: Will the minister confirm then that there is more than one level of standard for different uses?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there is a different category for industrial.

MR. CASHORE: Is the minister saying that there are two standards: one for parks and residential and one for industrial?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right; there are two.

MR. CASHORE: Just one last question. Is the minister saying that absolutely no one in waste management had any prior knowledge of the fact that soils were being removed from the Expo lands? Will the minister categorically say that no one from waste management had any prior knowledge of the fact that soils were being removed from the Expo site?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's an incorrect assumption. We knew that soils were being removed. In the case where it was determined to be clean fill, it was removed without permit. In the case where it was toxic, it was ocean dumped and permitted by the federal government under the ocean dumping act, but we did know of that activity.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to turn now to the issue of solid waste management. The minister commissioned the report which the Chairman conducted and introduced. It's dated March 1989, and the title of the report is "Taking Action."

One of the concerns we have is that the title of the report is perhaps the part of it that is not being fulfilled. If we go to the very last recommendation within that report, No. 76, given that there are a number of recommendations in there that have merit and given that it's dealing with a controversial issue, there are a number of recommendations that we might argue about, but certainly there are recommendations in there that can go a long way to improving the waste management situation. Recommendation 76 states: "...that the Ministry of Environment expeditiously prepare an action plan detailing how and when the ministry will implement those recommendations of this report which are accepted by government." I understand that cabinet has recommended the report in principle, so I would like to hear from the minister with regard to the recommendation that these recommendations be dealt with expeditiously and that an action plan be prepared, and I'd like to hear how that's coming.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's coming very well. It's in place now, Mr. Member. You'll appreciate that that type of recommendation has to be done in concert with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation

[ Page 8167 ]

and Culture and also with the UBCM. If we didn't involve those two people, your desk mate from Victoria would just hit the roof. We have the courtesy to involve ourselves with the UBCM and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, because we are essentially dealing with a municipal problem. I'm sure you are well aware of that. We have begun work on that process; we are taking action.

MR. CASHORE: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you continue your conversation, because I might be ruled out of order on this question. I would like to ask the minister to give us and the people of British Columbia some indication of a time-line with regard to when the recommendations will be forthcoming and when we can expect action — which is the title of the report — to be taken.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't give you specific details with dates or a hard agenda, but I will give you one date. I will be making a major address with respect to our initiatives at the UBCM meeting, which is on September 18. As a matter of fact, we sort of introduced the program last year at the UBCM. I will be there this year with the action plan, the agenda and what we are going to do in place on September 18 — or whenever it might be.

MR. CASHORE: We'll look forward to that. It will be none too soon. I would hope that when that announcement is made, the minister will be indicating a much more helpful role on the part of the provincial government, not only by recommending to the municipalities how they can get up to speed in recycling and in waste management but by its being a very comprehensive plan, with the province taking full partnership and enabling that to happen on a provincewide basis.

Again, I think this is one area where we find that there has been the use of the process as a means of avoiding taking action. For quite some time the process has actually enabled this government to study, study, study and to report, report, report, and now to announce that there is going to be another speech on another date in the not-too-distant future Who knows what we'll have to look forward to at that time in terms of further delays? Meanwhile, as the report points out, the landfills fill up and the problems for municipalities in rural areas in the province continue.

There's one aspect of this report that I would like to take a look at, and it has to do with the return of bottles and containers. It is true that the report recommends expansion of the deposit system to include some containers that are not presently included, and it also refers to a tax of two cents to be used for anti-litter programs. I'm sure the minister is aware that on page 9 it states that there's a return of 84 percent on the 750 million beverage containers sold annually. Given that this information, as far as we can ascertain, came from the industry itself, and given that a number of other players out there are involved in the process of dealing with those returned containers, has the minister considered doing an independent assessment with regard to the rate of return?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's interesting: the member accuses me of using a study process to delay implementation and then asks me to do another study, almost in the same breath. However, I guess it depends on how you slice it.

Actually, it's not a bad suggestion. We've gone through this long process because the technology markets, which are a big part of solid waste, are changing every day. A lot of jurisdictions went into programs that they thought would be the answer and found that they're not the answer. We have to move on this quickly but cautiously, and I would say that's how we're doing it. But it's not always easy. If I want to be characterized as anything in this portfolio, I don't want to be characterized as being awfully quick. I don't want to be characterized as being great or anything, but I don't want to be characterized as not being smart. I think we have to be smart in this management system. We have to analyze what the markets are, and we have to analyze how we're going to look after litter return.

You mentioned that 84 percent of pop or beverage bottles come back, but they are only 4 percent of the glass stream, so there are a lot of percentages and figures we can banter around. I also heard you comment the other day in another bill that you were worried about some jurisdictions that had gone to nomieposit systems. I can tell you that there is a lot of thought on that.

My colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) went to Ontario, looked at their system and made his recommendations along with ministry staff. I can advise the committee now that — time willing — I am also going to visit Ontario to look at the OMRI system, which works without benefit of deposit, and I will be making a decision then.

I think the jury is mixed; the evidence is considerable for both arguments. That's the most interesting thing, the perplexing thing. This is not a cut-and dried situation where you can say, "Use this management scheme and you are going to improve your program," because you will find evidence to the contrary if you look at another jurisdiction.

It's something that is going to have to be sorted out, but it is going to take good research. I am not going to be rushed into it. It's going to take a real study of other jurisdictions to see if regulations there will apply well in B.C. We have a unique set of problems here, with a scattered population, diverse geography and many transportation problems by virtue of the geography of B.C. — not by virtue of your Ministry of Highways, Mr. Minister — that we have to overcome.

To make the recipe fit British Columbia is going to take a lot of good research and study and a lot of good understanding of what the problem is and also, in the case of recycled products, of what the market is, because that's what determines how successful you can be in recycling.

[ Page 8168 ]

MR. CASHORE: A very interesting part of this whole discussion has to do with the question of why the bottling industry wants out of the deposit system. It is a complex question, because there is an allegation — which I am sure the minister is aware of — that there is a windfall profit to the bottling industry from unredeemed containers.

So we have this estimate in the report that says there is an 85 percent return of the 750 million beverage containers. There are other estimates, however, that have come from other parts of the recycling industry that would place it more in the area of 55 percent. Be that as it may, it is awfully difficult to get an absolute fix on that.

What about this windfall profit that comes to these bottlers through the unredeemed deposits? The answer then comes back: if that is a windfall profit, why on earth would they want to do that? Why would they want to not have access to that kind of a tax that was coming to them automatically, so to speak?

Again, the answers that I have heard in talking to people in the recycling industry and to volunteers who work in this area is that the bottlers really feel, either rightly or wrongly, that a deposit is a disincentive to their marketing and therefore they would actually be able to sell more of their beverage, which includes water and sugar and what have you, if they didn't have a deposit system, and they simply don't want to be bothered with it.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to be very clear about that deposit system, which goes back a long way and which British Columbia was one of the first jurisdictions to bring in as an anti-litter measure. When we are considering the possibility, which is alluded to in the report and again in the minister's comments to us now, that the deposit system might be abandoned in time, it would seem to me that what is happening here is that we are finding a confusion between an anti-littering measure and a waste management measure.

[5:45]

It would again seem to me that the recommendations of the report are on the right track when it talks about expanding the containers that would actually be brought into the deposit system. I would hope that we continue to move in that direction. I do recognize that the minister will be doing further research, but I am still very disturbed that the report does not recommend dairy products, those plastic milk jugs and that sort of thing.

I know that we can continue to argue about that. However, we should be taking a look at the money that is not collected from the bottlers: that is, the deposit money on the unredeemed containers. Mr. Chairman, if we were to take a look at that and if we were to take, for instance, one estimate that there's a 55 percent rate of return, leaving 45 percent, and if we said that there are 750 million units, and given that the deposit system now is five cents, ten cents, 20 cents and 30 cents, if we took the lowest of those, being five cents, and if we multiplied 750 million by five cents and then reduced that by the 55 percent that are returned, we'd be looking at something in excess of $15 million. If we looked at it using the arithmetic of the report, it would be in the neighbourhood of $6 million in unredeemed deposits. So let's, for the sake of argument, say that it's somewhere around $10 million that the bottling industry in this province receives as a windfall profit. That becomes a real concern. Why should they receive that windfall profit when it's the public that has paid that deposit and when we have the problems we are facing with regard to the cost of cleaning up litter, the cost of dealing with pollution, the cost of waste management?

Let's remember that the Quebec government distributes a percentage of unrefunded deposits to the stores to help pay for their costs and to encourage them to participate in the collecting of the containers. Saskatchewan takes unrefunded deposits into an environmental pool by the ministry of the environment; they use this money to fund measures and projects that are designed to assist with environmental cleanup and protection. So I want to say to the minister that I think we're missing an opportunity in not addressing this issue of the unrefunded deposits. I'd be interested in his comments on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's lots of information there. First of all, I'd like to point out that we are taking this very seriously, and we have a $2 million item in the budget, Mr. Member, for solid waste management.

Your arithmetic, again, has been rather creative. You've combined a couple of percentages to arrive at the 84 or 85 percent figure. You've made the fundamental mistake of mixing pop glass with beer glass. Beer glass is returnable; the breweries want it; it's reusable. It's about as close to a 100 percent closed loop in recycling as you can get.

Pop bottles are not that way. There is no windfall profit. The stores, the distributors and everyone dealing in pop bottle glass wants to get out of it. They are the people who advocate a no-deposit system. If they were making these $10 million of windfall profits, as you state, they would certainly not be lobbying for a system that does not have a deposit. In fact, they are arguing exactly the opposite. They want a no-deposit system. They have even said they will help us fund advertising programs, blue box programs, recycling programs, sorting programs and anything that will stop that pop bottle from coming back to the store and back to them. They simply don't want it. You are just a bit confused there on your details.

Whereas the beer people do want it. They have almost a closed loop. In fact, they have come to me and said: "Get rid of aluminum." Aluminum isn't the closed loop that bottles are. They are right on that fact. I don't know if I would think of getting rid of aluminum, because we have an aluminum industry in British Columbia, and it has an intrinsic value itself in terms of being recyclable. But nothing is as closed a loop as beer glass, which is close to 100 percent.

[ Page 8169 ]

Pop glass is not that way. There is no windfall profit, and there is no magic answer.

Again, if we're going to look at how we manage this whole situation, we have to consider that you have to have a market for a recycled product. We have done some work. My colleague the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was able to assist Consumers Glass in Lavington, who are needed in this province for recycling glass. We're doing everything we can. My colleague the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) has struck a deal with Mohawk Oil and is going to be making an announcement soon with respect to recycling paper. We are really moving quite quickly in terms of managing our solid waste stream, recognizing that we have this critical timeline ahead of us of running out of landfills within the next ten years.

We are also investigating incineration. We are investigating recycling, recovering or reuse to the fullest extent that we can. I would think that we are going to come up with a whole variety of answers depending on the area. Some recycling systems may require a subsidy if we're dealing with, say, Prince George, which is a large community — a shopping area of 100,000 people — but which is at the end of a 500-mile rail line. If you are going to ship newspaper, glass or aluminum, those considerations are going to have to be taken into account. There is no single easy site-specific B.C. answer. There are going to be a variety of answers. We are going to find them to the best of our ability.

I think I will close on that. Don't think there is a windfall in pop-bottle glass, because there certainly isn't. The distributors and the stores don't want it. They will pay us to get out of it. The best closed loop there is is beer glass. You can't confuse the two when you are looking at the glass stream, because they are totally different products with totally different markets and totally different records of recyclability.

MR. CASHORE: As I said before, of course they want to get out of it, because they found they can be more profitable without having the bother of dealing with an anti-litter measure. There's no question about that.

The fact is that in working out what that windfall profit is, basing it on the five cents — the lowest amount that is slotted for any of those returnables, a very conservative figure — it is a bit....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: It is also false logic for the minister to say that there is no windfall profit when the Saskatchewan government is able to put that windfall profit to good use for environmentally appropriate programs in their jurisdiction. To say there is no windfall profit.... Where is Saskatchewan getting that money — from a vacuum? They are getting it from the unredeemed deposits; there is no question about that. The fact that the industry is willing to put money into it is certainly not an altruistic, charitable move. I don't think the minister would argue that. It's a move that is being put forward because it supports their vested interests. They are not to be condemned for that. What has to be expected is that in the name of appropriate environmental management, the appropriate measures are taken by the appropriate government.

One of the items that the report refers to and that the minister has referred to is the issue of taking a look at markets for such items as recycled oil. As I said yesterday in the debate while raising that issue about Mohawk Oil in Kamloops, I also want to commend Mohawk Oil for its role in working with government in developing the process of recycled oil. I do think it is appropriate that the government would be moving in the direction of using recycled oil in government vehicles. We're not really scratching the surface in terms of research and development when it comes to the need to find the markets to develop the process that's going to enable British Columbia not to have to throw up its hands and say: "Well, we can't recycle. There's no market out there." There are creative measures that can be taken to enable those markets to develop.

One thing I would point out is that the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition has asked the Ministry of Environment for financial support so that it can carry on its work; to my knowledge, that has not been forthcoming. They have, interestingly enough, been appointed to the CCREM task force to do some work in the development of environmentally sound packaging. Recognizing that this is not a group of wild-eyed radicals but is a mainstream group providing excellent help in addressing this problem, I think it would behoove this minister to be providing that group with all the help that is available. They're going to be a major part of the solution as we work together within the province to address the issue of what to do with our waste.

It comes back to the last recommendation in the report. That's the recommendation where the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who chaired that report, places the ball very much in the court of this government. We've heard that we won't be hearing until September some kind of an announcement at the UBCM. The title of the report is "Taking Action," and action is needed now. Again, it's a question that waits upon an opportunity for this government to demonstrate that just perhaps it's starting to learn to develop some political will. But again, they won't be able to demonstrate that if we have to wait incessantly for some kind of action.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't have to wait incessantly. Remember, I was the minister who put the study into place in the first place.

You cannot deal with the municipalities that my colleague dealt with and do it in any great hurry, and you cannot deal with the massive problem that deals with municipal governments and just quickly run it through. That's what got your government in trouble when you were government. You rammed things down people's throats without appropriate consider-

[ Page 8170 ]

ation or discussion and found out inevitably that you were doing the wrong things. If we are erring on the side of caution, when dealing with municipal governments, we certainly have to do so. I am sure you can understand that.

There are a couple of responses I would like to make. I have also been to Saskatchewan and looked at the SARCAN model. It has merit to some degree, but don't forget: it takes two cents from every consumer and puts it in the SARCAN pocket. It's reaping windfall profits, as you categorize, because it is taking money from the user. The other thing is that SARCAN is good when it comes to pop bottles and aluminum but in fact has no impact on the rest of the solid waste stream. In that sense it is deficient, and we have to manage a larger problem than that in British Columbia; they do in Saskatchewan as well. They have adopted SARCAN, I think, to assist in one small part of the litter problem but, more substantially, to assist handicapped people. I can't say that I fault them for that initiative; that's the initiative they have taken as a government.

As one who has worked with handicapped people and as current Minister of Environment, I don't know whether I totally endorse that concept. My colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and I have discussed this briefly, and I think there might be a better remedy for, first of all, helping handicapped people, and secondly, solving environmental problems in British Columbia.

Lastly, with respect to Ruth Lotzkar's appointment to the national committee, it was Ruth who was recognized, not Environmentally Sound Packaging, although it's a commendable organization. Ruth is a dynamic lady with a lot of good ideas to bring to that group, and I commend her for allowing her name to stand. However, I do have other priorities in this budget and as much as I would like to help Ruth Lotzkar out — I have talked to her and to her husband — there are other things I would rather do with my budget to ensure that we have an environmentally clean and sound province. That may not be acceptable to you, but I will help Ruth and Joe and ESP in any way I can, but financially it's not in the cards for me right now.

[6:00]

I hope that settles everything you wanted to deal with today; I look forward to more debate tomorrow I understand that by agreement we are going to be engaging in other business now, so with that said, I will move the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DAVIS: This bill contains four elements: one relative to mines and the other three relative to energy.

The element that deals with mines provides authority under law for coal-mining companies to provide geological information to the province. They have been doing this voluntarily. This provides the legal backdrop for future provision of information.

Under the general heading of energy there are three elements. One provides authority for B.C. Hydro to pay a dividend annually to the Crown; another enables the B.C. Utilities Commission, the regulatory body, to set power and gas rates in a forward-looking manner and in a manner conducive to the wise use of energy — in other words, environmentally sound practices — and also to prevent rate shocks in the future. The third element under the energy heading relates to special low rates of the order of two cents a kilowatt-hour based on imported energy from either Alberta or the United States, energy which can be allocated to certain new strategic industries in regions around the province.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee stage on Bill 52.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENTS ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I am standing here today to ask some questions about this bill in the unavoidable absence of my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). I wasn't in the House for second reading debate; however, I have had an opportunity to review Hansard for June 23 and therefore have some understanding of what the ministry's position is in terms of justifying this measure and also what our response from this side is. We on this side of the House don't have much difficulty supporting the principle or the intention of the measure. We do, however, have some questions about the legislation before us, and that's what I would like to focus on.

Obviously, just for the sake of convenience and to get myself into the right frame of mind to talk about the intricacies of this bill, let me say that this bill's intention, of course, is simply to introduce traffic fines for moving offences — not stationary ones but moving ones. It is obviously held to have as its

[ Page 8171 ]

purpose to curb careless drivers and to prevent people from committing unlawful driving offences. It supposedly has, then, some deterrent value.

Interestingly, the minister's comments when he spoke in defence of Bill 52 in the House made no reference to the fact that this bill might also have some financial motive. The financial motive, first of all, in terms of reducing carnage on the highways is obviously there. But the bill is obviously going to have a revenue-generating capacity. I see that the superintendent of motor vehicles is in the House, so I'm sure that between the two of them they can answer all of my questions.

First, how much revenue are we talking about? What analyses have been undertaken? What kinds of dollars are we talking about if we implement Bill 52 and make this legislation? I'll ask a couple of questions apropos of that subject before I yield.

The other question is: if we are going to generate a significant amount of revenue, and if a significant number of dollars will accrue to the Crown, what will happen to those dollars? Is it the intention of the ministry to make sure that those dollars are used for prevention and education programs? In other words, are you going to try to take another hit at solving the problem of bad drivers on our highways and the cost to the people as a result of that bad driving? Is it a possibility that the ministry is considering doing something to finance victims' services? Perhaps we can use some of the dollars generated from this measure to put back into the system to help out individuals who are directly affected — negatively impacted — as a result of the bad driving that the measure is setting out to solve.

I wonder then if we might start by getting an answer to how many dollars. What did we base that on? Have we got some cost estimates? Also, what are we going to do with the money that we generate as a result of this measure?

HON. MR. REE: They use the term "guesstimate" on revenue. The member used the term — what was it? — "section that was in question," or you said it was controversial. I don't see that it's controversial, because you have indicated that you agree with the principle. The section itself, when you read it, doesn't indicate what the full impact of that section of the bill is, which is obviously to remove the traffic violation report procedure that we have in place at the moment and to bring in the traffic ticket information.

The traffic ticket information is used at present with out-of-province offenders of motor vehicle acts. To get down to the revenue, as I say, we use the term "guesstimate." We hope that at some time there will be no revenue in that everybody drives so properly and responsibly we don't have to issue any traffic ticket violations; however, that would be dreaming The guesstimate is between $20 million to $30 million, the increase possibly escalating over a period of time. A large percentage of people who receive the tickets may not pay them, but there's provision in the Motor Vehicle Act at present to refuse to issue licences to people who haven't paid outstanding fines. It would start to escalate as it built up over the five-year cycle of driver licences and renewals. That, as I say, is what is anticipated: somewhere between $20 million to $30 million.

We still have not completely resolved what the cost will be. Certainly there will be additional costs in court time of constables attending to give evidence on those tickets that are disputed. It is proposed — or is hoped — that the actual dispute of tickets will be done by justices of the peace under recommendations of that reform commission which the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) had, rather than by the present court system. Also, we are seriously looking at the payment of tickets through motor vehicle offices, government agents' offices, and possibly into ICBC agents' offices. We're still looking at that, because we are proposing the full implementation a year from now on July 1, 1990.

The proceeds from the tickets go to general revenue. Likewise, additional costs will be paid into the Attorney-General's ministry or my ministry. So you might say some of the use is for that. Because we won't be getting the revenue from this until into the 1990-91 fiscal year, 1, as the minister responsible for what I call public protection and public safety, will be using my influence with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to have some of the moneys in next year's budget to do whatever I can to feed back into traffic enforcement one way or another. This is strictly one part of what I hope will be a traffic safety program developed by this government over the next year. We're looking at rules with respect to bicycles, rules of the highways, Multanova cameras, ALERTs — a number of different methods of trying to, shall we say, slow people down and keep them from killing each other on the highway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would just like to advise the committee that we're on Bill 52, section 5. The section reads, "Sections 121 to 129 are repealed," and in the explanatory notes it says: "Section 5: repeals provisions that duplicate the traffic ticket provisions of the Offence Act, the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter and that established a traffic violation reporting procedure." I presume both the minister and the critic know that we're in order on this subject and know the parameters of it. It's a little difficult for the Chair to anticipate exactly what it is.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister went on to explain things in some detail. I've looked very carefully at the act before us, and I would just like to ask a question, and then I can follow up on it. Where in this act does it refer to and deal with those individuals who drive while under suspension and those who are not in possession of a driver's licence? Is that covered in the bill before us? The one area that has most impact on insurance and accident rates is, of course, those who are driving either without a licence or while their licence is suspended. I see no provision in the act that sits before us to deal with that category of offender.

[6:15]

[ Page 8172 ]

I'm just wondering if the minister could be as brief as possible in responding and allow me one further supplemental, and then I'll conclude on that section.

HON. MR. REE: The bill before us does not deal with the questions raised by the member. Those matters are already in the existing Motor Vehicle Act — offences dealing with people who are suspended or driving without a licence and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the broadness of the debate from the limited scope of the particular section, and in a sense I welcome it, because, as I indicated earlier, it's rather innocuous — if that's the correct term — to what the effect of that section is. I think the extent to which this section goes towards traffic safety and people being subject to penalties for motor vehicle infractions on the highway should be recorded in Hansard.

MR. DAVIDSON: Just on a brief conclusion, if I may, to the minister. He is referring throughout his comments to traffic safety and a desire to increase awareness, etc., and he has indicated that there is a fine system being developed and all the things that are contained herein. I would just like to know at what stage he envisions these two categories that I have referred to coming into play. If not in this act, then when?

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are straying just a smidge from the section before us, but what the heck? If there is some light that the minister could shed on that question, it would be appreciated, because certainly I don't see it contained specifically in the section before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind the member that when he occupied this chair, he would never have allowed such tolerant debate.

HON. MR. REE: I refer section 30, section 85 and section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the member's attention. I think that what the member is trying to get at is that enforcement and penalty at the moment for those infractions are not probably as severe as he would like to see. They will certainly be looked at and I am anticipating further legislation in the next session of this House, again dealing with the Motor Vehicle Act, for our complete traffic safety program.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the minister's response to my colleague from Nanaimo's questions around the dollars that would be generated by the restoration of fines, he noted that the intent is that they go into general revenue.

The minister has had, I know, a communication from the municipal council of New Westminster — which operates its own police force responsible for traffic enforcement in the city, through which literally hundreds of thousands of cars pass each day on their way to the municipalities that surround that hub city — about such an initiative, and I know the city will be very pleased that the minister has taken action and is restoring the fines.

The other part of that communication was that some of those revenues in fact be made available to municipalities for traffic enforcement as a source of revenue for that very important task that is among the duties of the police. I wonder if the minister can give us any indication of whether he is considering, in pursuit of the traffic enforcement goal he spoke of, making some of those funds available to municipalities such as New Westminster for direct use in traffic enforcement, a very major task of our local and locally-paid-for police force?

HON. MR. REE: The New Westminster police are very effective in their traffic enforcement, as the member well knows, and I think they should be commended on the job they do. But for the direction of the revenue back to a municipality, we do not believe it's feasible to do it on a ratio basis of the amount collected within a municipality. That would only encourage police to write more and more tickets, in a sense, at times when they might not, because they then would get more money back for each ticket they wrote. As the minister, I will certainly do my utmost to try and get the revenue directed through general revenue back to my ministry, the Attorney-General's (Hon. S.D. Smith's) ministry or wherever we can to be applied to traffic safety.

We will be looking at possibly funding or assisting in funding specific traffic initiatives within various communities. That's one thing we would like to see. I would like to see Counterattack, through the office of my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson), on a 12-month basis. Or maybe the New Westminster police would come up with some additional initiatives for Counterattack or some other special things towards young people's programs and initiatives. We would look at that. That's the sort of way I would like to see some of these moneys put back in.

The traffic problems on our highways are basically caused by 10 to 12 percent of the drivers. Almost 90 percent are safe drivers, but we have this great cost.... There were 145,000 accidents, I think, last year, with about 42,000 people injured and over 600 people killed. That is being caused by roughly 10 to 12 percent of the people on the highways. The cost is exorbitant, and I am dedicated, one way or another, to try and cut that down.

MS. A. HAGEN: One further question and comment. I acknowledge the minister's perception that one action is likely to produce another action and that a direct return to New Westminster might encourage our police force to write tickets. There is a certain kind of inexorable logic that we might accept in respect to that.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am sure they wouldn't, actually. They are a very capable lot of people, and they do in fact govern traffic safety in a way that is consistent with the objectives the minister has spoken about.

[ Page 8173 ]

I just want to note that the converse is true as well. New Westminster is in the hub, if you like, of the dispersal of traffic to the outer side of the circle in that Greater Vancouver Regional District, which means that as a small community of 40,000 people in a community of 1.5 million, I think that the figure is a couple of hundred thousand trips through the city a day. I don't have it right at my fingertips, but it is well in excess of anything related to local policing, simply because of the position of the city.

We have the Alex Fraser Bridge; we have the Pattullo Bridge; we have access through to the Port Mann Bridge. We have traffic funnelling from Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Coquitlam — all of those areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member to relate this to section 5 of the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: The issue is the pursuit of the question of revenue and in fact, in respect of that revenue, there is a very strong case for the minister to consider that. I just want to put that on the record. The minister may want to comment that there is a special case to be made in respect to this community and the volume of traffic that it must deal with in the interests of traffic safety, which is the goal of the minister in bringing in this particular clause.

HON. MR. REE: A very short comment. I appreciate the uniqueness of New Westminster. Every community in the province has that same uniqueness. I know my own riding of North Vancouver-Capilano has traffic from all over the lower mainland heading for Whistler, or for the ferries to Nanaimo or coming back the same way, the same as Burnaby has traffic coming from New Westminster to Vancouver. I recognize the uniqueness of each community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please relate this to the section of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which section is this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on section 5 of the bill, for those people who would like to be in order.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Section 5, as I understand it correctly, is that we will be reintroducing fines along with the point system that is now in effect. We had fines a number of years ago and we did away with them, and now we are to introduce them, except that in this case the money which is collected — the $30 million, or whatever the guesstimate was — goes into general revenue.

My question relates to the fact that the cost of writing those tickets in municipalities will be borne by the municipalities. The time of the RCMP, time in the case of a new independent police force, the court time, the appeal time, will be borne by the municipality. I'd like to know from the minister if there is any process to refund some of the money to the municipalities, which will be incurring lost time in the form of dollars from their police forces and their court system while the government is on another money collecting roll here to feather its own nest and make its books look good.

HON. MR. REE: Possibly the member as usual has misunderstood or hasn't looked at it with the proper appreciation; there is no direct increased cost to the police in issuing the ticket. The only increased cost indirectly is if more of the tickets are contested and it's his time at court. He still today issues the ticket, which goes through and he gets it on his driving record, and at ICBC and the penalty points. He still, in essence, is writing the same number of tickets, so the cost is not that great that there are going to be more tickets issued as such.

We are aware of this possible cost. We are certainly looking at it. I would like to put on the record that this is, to me, the first step of coming along in a traffic safety program that I hope we will have in place for July 1, 1990. The legislation is necessary at this time. This section probably will not be proclaimed until then, in order for us to set into place the procedure of handling it and enforcing the collections, the computer software programs, and all of that. That is why we are asking for the legislation at this time.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the fact that this is needed legislation, and in some manner, I concur with it, along with other people who.... If somebody else is fined, it's fine; if I'm fined, I'll probably contest it. I'd like to disagree with the minister. I think it will take more of the officer's time, because when somebody gets a ticket, they usually argue about whether they were right or wrong. When it is explained by the RCMP officer or the police officer that there will be a fine included on top of this, they will argue even more, and that will take even longer.

Also the court time and the appeal time is still of concern to me. I wonder if the minister had considered — when writing this legislation — offering or entering into negotiations with the municipalities to offset some of those costs that will be incurred, and why that isn't in this bill.

HON. MR. REE: At present 7 percent of the tickets issued are contested. We anticipate there will be some increase on that when the ticket carries a fine with it. I guess we're going to have to wait to see the extent of that increase. When we first contemplated this, we recognized the cost to the municipality of police time spent going into court. With respect to arguing with a motorist who receives a ticket, I don't think our police argue. They give the ticket, and it's not up to the policeman to stand there and argue with the motorist. All he has to do is hand the ticket to him. I would hope our police would not stand there and argue with any motorist. They are usually very courteous and proper. So we have considered this.

But we will be looking at funding some of the revenues back to the municipality. As you appreciate, general revenue today pays for a great deal of the damage from the carnage on the highways through

[ Page 8174 ]

our health system. To me, the proper place for the revenue to go is to general revenue, and then we look at the funding of the traffic safety programs on an individual basis.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I noted that the Chair is having some difficulty wondering whether the questions and the answers we're hearing here are in fact germane, entirely relevant and appropriate for committee stage. I would just point out — and I'm sure the minister opposite would agree with me — that it is the nature of this bill that section 5 represents the nub of the legislation, which has the Impact of reintroducing a system of fines in addition to points for British Columbia drivers.

Our questions have to do with the impact and the advisability of introducing that system of fines. So I think that everything we are doing is indeed relevant, and I'm sure the Chair will appreciate that comment.

[6:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: All of this would have been terribly relevant during second reading. We'll allow a certain degree of tolerance, but the member should by now be aware that the section we're now debating must be specific. The minister is the one we have to worry about, because if he strays, all of you can stray, and the Chair can do nothing about it. So I will just remind you that some of this should have been done in second reading. Having said that, the member might continue.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't have stated the matter more succinctly, effectively or correctly myself.

Before leaving the dollar question and the impact of this change made possible by section 5 of the bill, I would like to suggest to the minister that if we are talking about a measure that may indeed be revenue neutral, you can understand I'm sure, Mr. Minister, why some people may be a little bit skeptical about the advisability of the measure. The fact that this $30 million that we guesstimate for the coming year — and the sum that we anticipate will grow in the next few years — will disappear in that abyss called general revenue.

My point is this. If we are truly serious about providing deterrent value to bad driving, why don't we consider the prospect or the possibility of taking this money from the criminals — from those who are convicted or effectively plead guilty to committing driving offences— and earmarking it very specifically for educational programs on the one hand and perhaps some of it for the people who suffer as a result of those bad driving offences? That's the suggestion we're offering, Mr. Minister. I think it's a good one. I guess at this point we probably can't talk about amending the legislation to accommodate that request, but it's a concern I do want to offer for the record.

The next question I wanted to pose has to do with the issue of deterrence that the minister, in introducing the bill, talked about. My questions are really very straightforward. How do we know? What is that conclusion based on? If we are talking about introducing a system of fines in addition to the point system — because in the minister's own words, the point system itself was perceived as being ineffective in curbing bad driving practices — the obvious and fair question, it seems to me, is: what evidence do we have for suggesting that this new system will provide a deterrent and make it worth the candle, worth the effort of introducing? Would you please tell us what your argument about deterrence is based on? I hope it's not going to be something about human nature.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments about straying. Obviously if the others are following, they are followers.

The legislation is basically directed towards safety, not revenue. That is the goal: traffic safety on the highway, not the revenue. That happens to be ancillary to, or the follower of, traffic safety. That is the intent and the direction the government wishes to go in: traffic safety. I wish to make that point very strongly.

As for the deterrent, at the moment the penalty points accumulate until the anniversary date of a person's driver's licence, or that proximity of time. Then the person receives a notice as to what penalty points they have and what the cost has been. If they have five or fewer penalty points, they get no notice. In essence, the person can go on the highway and commit an offence a year... I make the analogy of shooting a rifle down the highway and not hitting somebody. He can speed down the highway and get a ticket, and if he doesn't kill anybody, he doesn't hear any more about it, because he only has three penalty points.

There are many stories of people who receive a ticket, tear it up and drop it on the ground in front of a policeman; they couldn't care less. Maybe they have a number of penalty points but they don't hear about it until possibly a year after they have received the ticket. Many of them write in and say: "When did I get that ticket?" They have forgotten all about it. It hasn't meant a thing to them. They have shoved it in their pocket, thrown it away or rolled it up on the floor of the car. With the new system we will be bringing in, within ten days they are going to have to go in and pay the appropriate fine. They will know that the mosquito has bitten them at the time of the offence. They will feel it.

MR. LOVICK: I take it, then, that we come to the argument about deterrence based largely on a process — and I see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is looking on, so I am going to use this word just for him — of ratiocination. In other words, we have reasoned our way to this conclusion, based on certain premises about the behaviour of people. You are telling me, in effect, Mr. Minister, that we really haven't done any kind of analyses or empirical work. Rather we conclude that if folks are going to get burned and it's going to cost them some money,

[ Page 8175 ]

then by heck, they are going to be much more careful in their driving. Is that a fair construction of how we got the deterrent argument, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REE: There was a considerable amount of research done prior to my time. It goes back all the way to 1982, when they had the Motor Vehicle Task Force. I believe to some extent that when one commits an offence, there should be an appropriate.... Was it in The Mikado: "My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time, to make the punishment fit the crime"? Will the punishment fit the crime, Mr. Member? I believe it is necessary.

MR. LOVICK: I certainly don't want to pursue this at great length. I am sure there will be a great sigh of relief from the collectivity at that news. We are all anxious to get to the education bill this evening.

Is it not the case, Mr. Minister, that we used to have such a system in place? Clearly we found that old system of fines wanting, and we came up with the new model. Is it correct that we scrapped the old system because it produced a rather clogged system in the courts? It was costing us a fortune, and we also had the problem of justice delayed and therefore justice denied. The obvious question is: is it the case that the ministry has thought about how they are going to prevent that kind of problem from recurring? In other words, do we have protections? Has something changed so that we no longer have to worry about the courts getting clogged because of a new system? Obviously it won't take too many people to appeal their fines and go to court before we can slow down the process. Can the minister answer that question?

HON. MR. REE: Possibly the member has been sleeping slightly over there, because we commented earlier that we hope that these are not going to court We hope to set up some other more inexpensive system through justices of the peace for the hearing of those who wish to contest their fines. Also, payment can be through motor vehicle offices, agents-general or even ICBC agents, where in the past it went through the courts. It will not be going that way. It will minimize any so-called "plugging" of the courts, if you want to call it that.

In 1968 the penalty point system was brought in and fines were abolished as far as B.C. drivers were concerned. We have learned that it has not worked, so now we are trying a new system, a new means, and certainly we'll look at it. We hope and trust that it will work, Mr. Member, but again, we're not all perfect and we will keep on trying the best we can to bring safety to our highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister indicated that payments could be made through the agent-general. I am sure Mr. Gardom will be pleased to read that in Hansard.

MR. LOVICK: I would just like to caution the minister to be a little careful. We don't want to do anything to destroy the rather civilized temper of this place. Don't ever accuse me of being asleep. I'm like a strategic air command bomber: I never sleep — always alert, always on guard.

The answer to the question about whether the system will be plugged, with all due deference to the minister, is quite misguided. If you set up another system using justices of the peace and other ancillary personnel, that system, too, may just as well get clogged; that system, too, is going to cost us money. So please don't suggest, Mr. Minister, that somehow the question is irrelevant; it is very relevant indeed.

Let my try another one: a question of discrimination. When I said in the beginning of my comments, Mr. Chairman, that we supported the principle of the bill, I wasn't suggesting for a moment that we support the principle of fines being the solution to our problems and the appropriate deterrent. The reason I take that position is just that fines are, by their nature, discriminatory.

Obviously for poorer people a fine is a much greater penalty to pay than it is for somebody well-to-do, and I am wondering if any thought whatsoever was given by the minister, in drafting this legislation with his staff, to talking about doing something — I am not going to suggest that I have an instant handy-dandy solution — about the inherently discriminatory part of this legislation: namely, a straight fine, which obviously will have a different impact on different people according to their means.

HON. MR. REE: I am pleased to hear that he relates himself to a strategic bomber. Would that be like the Russian one of the other day...?

Discriminatory? I do not see it as discriminatory at all, Mr. Chairman, because anybody committing the offence knows what the fine is. They can avoid the payment if they adhere to the traffic laws of the community. That is the same for everybody, rich and poor. There is no sign up there saying that this person can break the laws.

We will not put in a different fine for the Cadillac driver versus the little Toyota, but I don't find this to be discriminatory fining at all, because nobody has to pay it if they adhere to the driving laws. That applies to the poor and to the rich.

[6:45]

MR. LOVICK: I understand that the Solicitor-General has some legal background and training and he knows his Montesquieu and knows very clearly that the law in its majestic equality extends to all, be they rich or poor, great or small and all that. But the problem is that we all know that a $75 fine for a single parent on welfare is not the same as for a doctor practising in Shaughnessy. So please don't have the temerity, Mr. Minister, to suggest that the system isn't discriminatory; it is necessarily discriminatory. Whether you intend it or not is irrelevant; the fact is, it is discriminatory.

I want to ask just one other question and then I think we'll leave this matter, because the purpose of the legislation is good. Obviously we agree with

[ Page 8176 ]

anything that will do something to decrease the incidence of bad driving and careless driving on our roads. We don't have difficulty with that, and therefore we are happy to support that principle. I emphasize: that principle.

I want to ask the minister where we find the information on the fines — the offences that are actually being committed and the amounts to be levied against the people who commit the offences. It isn't here, and I'm wondering, because the Motor Vehicle Act, as we all know, is a very complicated and cumbersome document with pages and pages of regulations attached to it.

HON. MR. REE: I might add a little bit more on the discriminatory aspect, because I'm confident that the member hasn't thought of how one assesses the fine to be levied on a poor person versus a rich person.

MR. BRUCE: Do you have to speed!

HON. MR. REE: No, they don't have to speed. But would the member think of setting up a method of assessment? Would the offender have to file his income tax return to show what his past or present income is? All of these things would have to be looked at: his assets, income of spouse, support from family. It would be a horrendous thing to get into This was all considered when we looked at it, and we've set one fine for everybody, because they can avoid the payment of the fine by not committing the offence.

The location of the schedule of fines is an appendix to the Offence Act. I think it is appendix A.

MR. LOVICK: Just a couple of quick questions about those offences. Can the minister confirm for me that there appear to be what can only be called some silly fines extant? Is it true, for instance — and I'm asking this question without the information before me; this was given to me by someone in our research department — that the fine for driving over a newly painted line is $75, but driving on the sidewalk is only a $50 fine? Will the minister confirm that, please, and then explain why.

HON. MR. REE: The member may be quite right on that. The legislation has nothing to do with changing the fines or imposing new ones. I think it's then that we talked about straying a little further afield. The member can find out what the appendix A fines are in the Offence Act. Differences were set out some time ago, and we're just adopting those fines which are at present valid for non-resident drivers When people from outside B.C. receive a ticket, they pay the fines under that schedule. Those fines too go through to general revenue.

MR. LOVICK: You can understand, Mr. Solicitor General, why we aren't exactly filled with confidence as we listen to the explanation. If that's the case and if it's also the case that somebody can be fined $35 for riding a cycle without lights, and then we discover that that's exactly the same fine that somebody would pay for parking a car in the George Massey Tunnel, we wonder whether this legislation and those who drafted it are really in tune with what ought to be happening.

Was there no effort to review those other bits and pieces of existing legislation to ensure that we would get rid of those rather anomalous chunks of the existing legislation — things that don't seem to make a great deal of sense? Will the minister give us assurance that a full review of that kind of thing is also planned for the future so we will never again have these rather silly instances of fines that don't seem to make a great deal of sense?

HON. MR. REE: To repeat for the third time for the strategic bomber that stays awake but may not listen, this is part of the overall. We are today dealing with amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, not to the Offence Act. You may see changes in the next year. This is being implemented by July 1, 1990.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. LOVICK: I understand that the intention of section 6 is to repeal a section of the Motor Vehicle Act that was passed but never proclaimed. I'm wondering if we might get some explanation of why that was the case.

HON. MR. REE: Section 6 repeals sections 19 and 26 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982. This dealt with the same traffic violation reports procedure that we're repealing in the Motor Vehicle Act under section 5. I'm told that a different approach was being taken at that time.

MR. LOVICK: That explanation is sufficient, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues and I are happy to support the measure.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. REE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 67.

[ Page 8177 ]

SCHOOL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is advised of a number of amendments which have been proposed by the minister and should be in the hands of all members of the committee. They do not appear in today's orders, but they are available, I believe, to all members.

On section 1.

MS. A. HAGEN: This section, called the interpretation section, is quite lengthy. I will raise some questions about the definitions that are included, and I want to zero in immediately on the definition of an educational program, because it's central to the act. It's central to the responsibilities of the minister and the powers of the minister in respect to the delivery of those programs. It's central also to boards and to the teachers who will be delivering the program.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The definition states that educational program means an organized set of learning activities that, in the opinion of the board, the minister or a parent, is "designed to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." I would again invite the minister to consider our amendment during second reading on the preamble or the intent of bill: that one of the goals of educational programs be to enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes to participate in a democratic society. We feel, as I think we made clear the other day when we were in second reading, that this is an important and integral part of school activities. In fact, today I was talking to a school trustee who noted that his board, in establishing goals for education, had placed that very goal in a central position among the important goals that their school intended to try to achieve.

I leave that with the minister. The minister knows our feelings on this side of the House in respect to that matter. When it was put forward, it was deemed to be a friendly amendment. Were the minister prepared to stand down this clause at this particular stage and to consider that amendment, to bring it forward at a later time in our debate at committee stage for attention both here and in the preamble, which we will deal with at the end of the act, we would welcome that initiative and consider it a move that would improve the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the preamble can be discussed at the end. Right now we're on section 1, which is the definitions.

MS. A. HAGEN: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. My comment was that because this particular statement on educational programs reflects and gives force to the preamble, the two are connected. Although I know we will not be discussing the preamble, the language in this particular interpretation is in fact identical to the language in the preamble. We are indeed discussing educational programs. We will be discussing the preamble as the very last matter we deal with in this act, but it is clear that the force of this clause is to give status to a preamble which I understand has no force in law. It's a very good move in fact, and I commend the inclusion of the preamble, through this interpretation, in the statute itself. What I'm speaking about is the language of the educational program. I am making a connection, and I think the minister understands....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is clear, and you're in order. Please proceed.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm glad that we have clarified that and that the connection is there. In fact, the importance of this particular definition and of the preamble which empowers it is something that motivates our first discussion in committee. As my first question, let me ask the minister if he would be prepared to consider standing down this particular clause for amendment?

[7:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Before I answer the question I would like the House to acknowledge the presence of my senior staff, my advisers who are here with me so that we can answer all the questions that might come up. I would also like the House to acknowledge the presence of a number of teachers who are in the gallery this evening. They're here because they happen to be marking scholarship exams during the day. I thank them for stepping right out of the schoolroom and right into marking for a couple of weeks, and commend them for their interest in coming out this evening to join us.

MR. MILLER: I hope they learn something.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I expect they will learn a considerable amount from this side of the House. I can't speak for others.

Anyway, the short answer to the question is no. It's not because we have any objection to the democratic society. It's encompassed in the present definition of a healthy society, and further, it's included as we go into the detail of the mandate statement. It's included throughout, and I believe it's in the Constitution Act. So we assume, without having to say so, that we live in a democratic society.

MS. A. HAGEN: My colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), who very often has a quick comment, just noted — and I'll repeat it for the benefit of the House — that if it's worth saying it's worth saying twice. I think that sums up the position we've taken,

[ Page 8178 ]

and I regret the minister's position in respect to that. It was indeed a friendly amendment, a positive amendment, and it would have, I think, set a tone for our ongoing discussions.

But we have a good deal to discuss, as I think the minister and I both recognize; and a number of my colleagues are here tonight to join in discussion of the act. I too would like to join the minister in welcoming his officials and welcoming those teachers who have been poring over complicated forms. If it's multiple choice, I can just imagine how tired their eyes must be as they join us this evening. But it's really good to have some teachers in the gallery as we debate this important act.

Would the minister comment on the significance of the term "in the opinion of the board" in respect to an educational program, and on whether there are limits on programs that may be offered by virtue of that language — in the case of learning activities provided by the board? If we are, for example, looking at people who have special needs, will those special needs be accommodated by the board whether or not the program is currently available? What in fact is the import of the term "in the opinion of the board"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think you have to look at it in the total context. The term "in the opinion of the board" is designed to enable learners to develop their individual potential. It allows the boards to say, from their point of view: "This is an educational program."

As for whether it applies to special learners, I think further sections of the act make it quite clear that any student of school age and resident in the district is entitled to enroll in an educational program, and the board is required to provide an educational program. It gives leniency to locally developed courses, to program selection and to what can be included in what constitutes an educational program.

In the school districts it's the responsibility of the board, in a provincial school it's the responsibility of the minister and in the case of home schooling, which section 13 refers to, it is the responsibility of the parent. But it is a requirement of all three to make sure that any student gets an educational program.

MS. A. HAGEN: In various documents that the minister has circulated and in the regulations, learning is defined as intellectual, human, social and career learning. Is there any intent that those words will be reflected in the act? How are those words empowered in respect to the provision of programs? I think most people think about learning in more typical subject terms. I know the minister has made a great deal of effort to speak about focus on the learner. Can the minister relate intellectual, human, social and career development as it's reflected in regulations and other documents of policy of the minister to this definition?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The act is enabling in the sense that it provides for an educational program in the regulations. In the mandate statement, an educational program further encompasses intellectual, human, social and physical development.

MS. A. HAGEN: Given that the educational program defines, in fact, what will be available to the students in a school district — I'm looking ahead a little further — is this the basis on which a parent could challenge, through an appeal, the decisions of board people? Is this the definition that would, in fact, provide a basis for an appeal?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I suppose it could be. Although we look at it probably from a different perspective. We look at it that it would be the opportunity for parents in consultation and in a cooperative effort to make sure that the student is getting an educational program rather than looking for a basis of challenging.

MS. A. HAGEN: In recognizing that, I think the answer is, though, that this is the fundamental framework that would provide that basis. There may be some other colleagues who want to raise some questions. I want to move on to some other matters in the interpretation.

Could the minister comment on why "home education" is not defined in the interpretation section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would be very difficult to define "home education," just as it would be very difficult to define what the curriculum shall include and consist of in a piece of legislation. What is provided for later on in these sections is that in the case of home education, which is being legitimized, there is a requirement and a way of checking that an educational program is available to the student. I'm not quite sure how you would define in legislation everything and anything that any curriculum, including a home curriculum, would include.

MS. A. HAGEN: We have defined in this particular part of the act a whole number of things that relate to education. We have independent schools not specifically defined but at least defined in respect to the second act that we're going to be dealing with. Is there no kind of effort on the part of the ministry at this stage of the game to give some parameters to home education?

Is home education something that happens in the home? Is it something that happens with fewer than ten pupils, which is something that is less than an independent school? Is it something that can take place in a school by any other name? Is it something that is organized by the parent? Is it something that is provided by the parent or someone the parent chooses to have provide that education?

We are talking about regulating home education, and it seems appropriate that we have some idea about what we are talking about — not necessarily what the curriculum might be but what might be encompassed in this concept of home education. In its simplest form, it is a parent teaching a child at home. It's obvious that there are many other forms

[ Page 8179 ]

that it could take, and it seems it would be useful, given that we've defined a school and an independent school, that we also define this other method or way in which education is provided to students: namely, a home education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's easy enough to refer to parameters established for home schooling; that is, in the requirement that the child must be provided with an educational program. Hopefully in the school system as well we will no longer consider an educational program as a pre-packaged, pre-selected, grade-stamped body of material; that it will be learning skills, reading skills, arithmetic skills, computational skills, the skills that are incorporated there. That can be made up of courses that the student must take.

You don't need to define "home" in the legislation. In the interpretation, the definitions are restricted to technical terms that have a relevance as they show up in clauses. The home schooling, of course, requires an educational program to be provided and some evidence that the student is getting an educational program.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would just remind the minister that home education does show up in the act. It's a whole division, 4, of the act, and it seems to me that it's reasonable that there should be some definition of what we are dealing with here, especially since school districts are going to be registering these students. It helps to confound the definition by not having made at least some attempt to give it some technical or interpretive framework.

Let me ask another question of the minister. The word "Indian" is defined, and I just want to clarify that this term in the interpretation refers, then, to what are also referred to quite often as "status Indians"? Is that the intent of the interpretation here?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The definition of "Indian" as it shows up in the act is that that refers to strictly the person who is defined in the Indian Act of Canada. We can refer to natives and Indians in many other ways, but for purposes of this act, that is what it means when it shows up.

In answer to the other question about home schooling, of course it shows up in the act, but section 12 later on describes what home schooling is it does not need a technical definition in the interpretation section.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister if there was any consideration of using the preferred term as far as the native people are concerned, "aboriginal," in respect to that particular language?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We could have put "aboriginal" in here and then said "and 'aboriginal' means 'Indian' when it shows up in the Indian Act," so we may as well go with the term that shows up in the federal legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am not sure the minister answered my question. I think he said that there was some consideration and that the drafters of the act decided to stay with this particular language.

Could I ask the minister to just quickly define "provincial resource program" and "provincial school"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sorry, I thought this was the definition section, so I guess that's what threw me for a minute, to define what we have defined. You will note that a provincial school means a school directly operated and maintained by the minister, and so provincial resource program is a program that is offered in that school.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps I could phrase my question better. What might these schools do?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: For example, the education and correctional institution is a provincial resource program. There are a few special schools that are operated by the board but completely funded by the ministry in a few districts. I suppose the classic example would be the Jericho School, which is a provincial resource program, and it could be operated by a board.

[7:15]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Section 2 is the clause that deals with access to educational programs, and I understand this clause to be a very significant one, because it states that every person who is resident in a school district is entitled to enroll in a school. I understand that it is the intent of this bill that this means that every person of school age within a school system, within a school district, is eligible for an educational program. Are there any limits on that eligibility?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are no limits that I can think of as far as eligibility is concerned. I suppose the limits might be the realm of possibility of.... I could not stand up and say that every student who is eligible for an educational program will get exactly the same educational program. There will have to be adjustments to accommodate the needs and abilities of students, but they are all eligible.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would there be any occasion, in fact, when the school board would be able to deny someone access or deny someone an educational program?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, because in a later section it requires a board to provide an educational program to any of the students that are eligible, I don't know what the connotation of "deny" means; I don't know whether it would be called a denial if a student was having great difficulty

[ Page 8180 ]

in arithmetic and the board didn't see as part of their educational program an advanced course in calculus. I don't know whether you would consider that as a denial; I would consider it common sense.

MS. A. HAGEN: What if the educational program required by a student is not provided by the board? What onus is there on the board to provide that program?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The board is required to provide an educational program. They don't necessarily have to provide it themselves, and there are provisions later on for options by which they can offer that course or educational program.

MS. A. HAGEN: We will perhaps have an opportunity to look at this issue later, but I just want to raise the question at this stage of the game. When we're talking about the provision of educational programs, we're also talking about the dollar resources to provide those programs and the staffing resources as well. What role does the ministry have in providing dollar resources as a result of this access-to-education-program clause?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess that in a sense it's the same role we've always had: to provide to the best of our ability the resources required for the education system. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the role we have. We have the fiscal framework, we have all that, so it's not a change — other than I'm pleased that we have more resources available for more options and for the implementation of the directions given to us from the Sullivan report. We have an obligation to provide that, but not a completely unlimited obligation according to any demand. If someone lives alone in a rural area, the board would not have to provide a teacher for that person in a remote location. We still have an obligation to give that student an educational program through correspondence and other means, but it depends on what your connotation is.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is this clause an increased mandate for the school system, in the minister's view?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry. This clause? Are you talking about section 2? 1 don't know that it's an increase in practice, but it has certainly increased and specified some of the things that have come into practice. Every student of school age is entitled to be enrolled in an educational program, and later on it's required that the board provide an educational program in some form to any student eligible to be enrolled in an educational program If you look at it as expanded from the old legislation, it's not so much expanded from the practice that we have had, but it's certainly an expanded opportunity for some students who in the past may have been denied enrolment in an educational program.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister could advise me. I'll lay my question out; there may be another section dealing with it. It deals with the rural area in my constituency. I assume there are similarities in other areas where you have a fluctuating population. There are a certain number of students required before some assistance kicks in, in terms of a teacher.

In the small community of Oona River — which I'm talking about — that population does tend to fluctuate, and it has over the years. Occasionally you'll get some people moving in. It's an older community that was established prior to the war — essentially a fishing community. There were a number of them along the coast years ago. They have tended to shut down over the years, but there are still some of these small communities.

There was a real anomaly in the kind of funding that was available. When the numbers fell below the minimum requirement, the kids were on correspondence. The local community kicked in their personal money to hire a teacher to oversee the correspondence courses. So the kids went every day to a little schoolhouse built in the community, and there was always a problem in trying to get sufficient contribution from the ministry to offset some of the wages for not essentially a teacher but more of an overseer in terms of the correspondence courses the kids were taking.

I didn't bring all the details with me. But is this the clause in which to discuss this kind of situation and the kind of support that comes from the ministry or from the school board in that particular district in relation to these small, isolated communities? Or is there another section of the bill under which it would be more appropriate to bring up the matter?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, the act does not specify the number of dollars, so the more appropriate place would be in the budget discussion on those items. But the problem that the member mentions is, of course, with us, and I guess it will always be. However, every effort is made to provide students with an opportunity to further their education.

We have now moved the correspondence branch into the regions, so we have regional correspondence schools which have provided much more contact by teachers from the branch to go out to talk to the students. It seems to have had good results. That can be provided in many ways. For instance, students who have to take correspondence don't have to pay a correspondence school fee; that's provided for them. I don't think we'll ever be able to say....

It might be a lot easier at the elementary level, but suppose you have a grade 11 student out there. I'm using the extreme to make the point that we have the means now with satellite communication. We hope to increase technology in order to have more direct contact with these people, but the regionalization of the correspondence schools has provided much better contact and much quicker response; with technology I think we can improve on that considerably. There's a lot being done. I don't think we'll ever solve the

[ Page 8181 ]

problem of being able to place a school anywhere with the full complement of teachers regardless of whether there's only one or two students. Right now the requirement remains that it takes ten students to start a school. Once it drops below eight, then, with approval of the minister, they may request a shutdown of the school. That is so we can take a look at it and make sure it isn't a closure one month and an opening the next month — that sort of thing. So that's why we like to make sure it goes through the proper process.

MR. MILLER: I thank the minister for that response. I agree it's not possible to have absolute equality. In fact, I'm not sure it's all that desirable in some ways. I went to a one-room schoolhouse when I was a kid up on the northern end of Vancouver Island in a few logging camps, and I don't think it really hurt me. I wouldn't have liked to have had all of my education in that kind of atmosphere, but I don't think it hurt me at all in the beginning grades. The minister might disagree with that, but we'll leave that for another time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, you done good.

MR. MILLER: Yes, right.

But there are some anomalies, and without getting into specific dollar amounts, you have a situation — again referring to Oona River — where the money available from the ministry for transportation or for bringing those children from that isolated community... By the way, I should point out that technology is fine, but this is a community that didn't even have power. Hopefully they'll be getting it this year or, at the latest, early next year, thanks to their hard-working MLA. But they didn't even have power. So I don't know if technology was all that applicable in this particular instance.

The funding arrangements were such that there were actually more dollars available to take those kids from that rural community, which is fairly close to Prince Rupert, bring them into town and provide some boarding arrangement than there were to provide some tutorial assistance to remain in the community. I'm really talking about the primary grades Those people are not going to try to teach their children through correspondence or any other method once they get into the junior high levels. So I just think there were some real anomalies in the funding arrangements for these remote communities, which could have been straightened out, I think, relatively simply, and it would have contributed to....

I guess it does fall under this clause in terms of that kind of equality of access — as much as can be achieved. I did ask the question of whether or not there was another section of the bill under which it would be more appropriate to debate this particular instance that I'm talking about. Perhaps the minister could indicate. If not, I guess this is it, and I'll have to make my pitch now that there be some look given at that. If equality is a goal, I think we can do much better in terms of trying to achieve it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, there is not a more appropriate section of this bill to discuss budget matters. Since the member is completely out of order on this section, I will join him, slightly out of order, to say that there are funding arrangements for remote schools, for travel and for boarding within the fiscal framework. Many of those are provided. Again, I will say that I don't know whether everything the people would like.... Sometimes money is not the answer to it, because transportation is a matter of time. Even if you could pay their way, it wouldn't make sense. But I think there are many opportunities, and I hope there will be more opportunities for the people who are teaching or for the resources of the board to reach out to the students, and more opportunities for the students, through contacts, to reach in, if you like, to where the fountain of wisdom resides — at the local level, of course.

[7:30]

MS. MARZARI: Well, my colleague was talking about accessibility to educational programs from a geographic point of view. I would like to talk about accessibility not from a geographical point of view but from the point of view of specific and special programs. I want to talk about English-as-a-second language programs in Vancouver and enhanced or increased access to these programs by students who need them. In my mind, section 2 is the place to raise these questions of rural and special needs access, because they aren't really referred to elsewhere in the bill, as far as I can read.

Mr. Minister, as you are aware, the Vancouver School Board set up a special committee to look at special needs of the English-as-a-second-language student. As you know, ESL students have become a very large percentage of the Vancouver school population. The numbers that the committee pulled together are as follows: in 1974, 28.3 percent were ESL students; in 1977, 34.5 percent; in '83, 46.5 percent; and in '88, 46.9 percent. Almost half of the students in the Vancouver school population come from homes where English is a second language and need special assistance from the school system in Vancouver. It's certainly a very geographically localized problem, but one which I think section 2 should speak to.

The committee's report, which came down in January of this year, talks about the desperate need in Vancouver for special reception centres and speaks to the fact that very little special funding has been set aside to enable these reception centres for immigrant students or for new students coming into the system to be helped. So I would ask the minister where in this bill, under what regulation or how he is going to interpret section 2 to provide access to the multicultural students who are coming into our school system in Vancouver.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know of anywhere in the bill where it refers to a particular special

[ Page 8182 ]

education program, a particular ESL program or a particular program of any kind. That is part of the curriculum development; it's part of the regulations as they apply. It is not customary to put each one of the programs in the act.

If the member would relate the term "educational program" from section 2 to the definition of "educational program" in section 1, she will see there is nothing that could be more encompassing. One of the reasons why we were so adamant in having the term retained in here is that developing their individual potential to contribute to a healthy society means that those adjustments are necessary. When we get into exactly how the program works, we get into budget consideration and all of the special ways to do it.

I guess if there is one thing that the new directions in education are going to make that much more possible, it is the focus on learning, where students can stay with their peer groups and learn at the level at which they are capable of learning in any subject and get guidance. I think it is an opportunity where they don't have to feel that they have to be in with the younger kids in order to learn; they can be in with their own group. They would not fail, if you take it to its ultimate optimistic level; they would simply be progressing the next day from where they left off the day before. I think it would be a great opportunity and a wonderful incentive for students to learn. The focus is again on learning, through the educational program, boards, schools, districts and through the professionalism — if you like — of teachers. They will do their very best to provide that opportunity for learning.

This act, which enables the new directions to be implemented, goes a long way.... There will never be any way that we can solve all the problems, but it certainly goes a long way to making possible much happier and more effective students, regardless of where they start from.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, we do have a very comprehensive bill. We have another 229 sections to go. Seeing that it is so comprehensive, the Chair will be lenient, but the standing orders do say that we should be strictly relevant to the section. I would ask the members of the committee to assist me and try and remain relevant to the section we are discussing at the moment.

MR. BARNES: I wanted to try to respond. I hope I can be in order. I know it is going to be pretty difficult, because this is not quite the same as second reading.

You talk about special needs being left up to the school boards, to the advisory groups, etc. that are identified in the act. I am a little disturbed by that. It is a general approach to something that I think should be quite specific.

First of all, multiculturalism is not specifically mentioned in the act. You do make reference to guaranteeing Charter rights with respect to languages other than English, but as for the concept of multiculturalism as a demographic reality, which is becoming even more profound as the years go by.... This is a growing, phenomenal shift in the population makeup. This diversity being such a reality, and your government having taken many trade and business initiatives with the Pacific Rim, I would like you to give us some assurance that the public school system is addressing the socialization requirements for the year 2000. In other words, we can see that we have embarked on quite a change, almost at an awesome rate. Is this new act, for all its good intentions in administrative housekeeping changes that are taking place...? The preamble states the attempt is to provide the individual with an opportunity to reach full potential within the public school system. There is a gap, in my view, in the stated objectives of a mixed society, a society in a global community. It's just not sufficient to prepare people to cooperate and to recognize diversity on a trade-relationship basis rather than one of socialization, academic understanding and citizenship, in a much more succinct and specific way. I have some difficulty with the lack of any specific mention of the curriculum responsibility for multiculturalism. To me, that is a special need for the school system, not just for individuals within the system, as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey was pointing out. That is something that I'm sure you would agree is vital to the success of this program, in terms of its usefulness and applicability to the needs of our society in the years to come.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, as I mentioned earlier with regard to special needs, legislation cannot prescribe something that individually fits every student in the system. That is done in the regulations, but even very little there. The rest of it is in curriculum development, I suppose, and in the right of all students to develop their individual potential, and in the definition of a healthy society, which in my mind would include multiculturalism. In other words, a healthy society is tolerant and all of these other things.

In the "Policy Directions" booklet that we issued in January, we dealt with special education, multiculturalism, gender equity and all of those things. For instance, the general policies for the school system: "...cooperative, principled and respectful of others, regardless of differences...aware of the rights and prepared to exercise the responsibility of an individual within the family, the community, Canada and the world." It's there, but not all of the details or specifics are included in the legislation.

I have to go back to that. In the legislation we deal with the main aspects of making possible the curriculum, the specifics, the evaluation and the assessment. We might say in the legislation that where evaluation or assessment is required, it shall be done by all, but we don't spell that out. That goes as part of the curriculum development. I'm sure that if the member doesn't have copies of "Policy Directions" and the mandate for the school system of British Columbia, which we issued long ago.... It will get a lot more discussion, and there will be much opportunity.

[ Page 8183 ]

We can't spell out all of the things that should be done in the legislation. I'm supportive of what the member is saying, and I think it is encompassed in the act and, in broad terms, in the development and the implementation. We've spelled out our intents quite clearly on that. Many other people will be helping to develop and translate that into the type of society we've described in the mandate statement.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think this is what we might call the dual-entry clause of the bill. It deals with the variable two-entry dates for children coming into the school system. I just want to ask a couple of questions right off the top, because certainly there's been a lot of discussion around the concept of dual entry going along with the ungraded primary program. In the original draft of the act, I was rather startled to see that we were actually enshrining the ungraded primary program. That is gone — and, I think, well gone, in the sense of its being very prescriptive of a program in the developmental stages.

I'd like to ask the minister if, first of all, the effect of this particular clause is to make kindergarten compulsory. Up until now, it's been an optional program, as I understand it, in the school system. Is the effect of this clause to make kindergarten a compulsory part of that four-year, ungraded primary program? A second question related to that, given that children may enter the school system either in September or in January, is whether it is the intent of the program that students will have, if you like, a full year of kindergarten. I don't want the minister to launch into: "This is an ungraded program." I know that's the obvious response.

The concern here is that it will indeed allow a full developmental process. Is kindergarten now, if you like, compulsory? What about that full year of kindergarten? That's a question I ask on behalf of that very important group of teachers — the kindergarten teachers — who really see that initial year as a very special and very important year in terms of education, recognizing the range of skills, abilities, social capital, readiness and all those other things that youngsters bring to their first entry into the school system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the reason that some of the things that were originally in the draft have been refined and taken out.... The act provides for the entry age. It provides for dual entry; in other words, students in a certain time-frame may become eligible in September; others become eligible in January. The act has to provide for those entry ages.

[7:45]

It also provides for that choice that the member is talking about, in that parents may defer by two entry dates. If a student is eligible this September, they might not feel the child is ready this September. They might not feel the child is ready in January, even though by age the child is eligible, but would be required.... In other words, the compulsory aspect, if you like, kicks in the following September. So even if they become eligible at the age of five, the compulsory aspect cuts in at the age of six.

But when they start school, they start on their program and there is no requirement in the legislation as to how long they remain in kindergarten or what the minimum and maximum times are. There is no requirement for them to go.... It does feed in. Although the act doesn't specify the ungraded primary, that is part of the curriculum development. That is part of the evolutionary process that we expect will happen. I believe that in the present regulations there is the requirement that students not be moved before four months in the first placement. There aren't going to be fine lines where the student finishes off. It is certainly not in the legislation, it provides the choices here. It does make attendance compulsory from the age of six to 16. It makes them eligible at the age of five.

MS. A. HAGEN: If I hear the minister correctly, children who are moved in that first four months could be moved out of what we've thought of as the traditional kindergarten experience and into that next stage, which might be different.

1 find it difficult to ask the questions because I know we are talking about a changed program at this stage of the game. But I am really concerned that the dual-entry program is not one that is going to have the effect for many children — I had a January child who would have gone into school with that particular opportunity — of short-circuiting the normal formative, developmental process that has been encompassed by kindergarten; and we know that kindergarten teachers have done a very thorough job of preparing youngsters for their ongoing primary experience.

The other thing is that the children who go in that first year go in for half a day, not a full day. That shift at four months to a full day is another major consideration. So I am still concerned, in spite of what the minister has said, that this may — for whatever it is; half the children who go into the system — have the effect of depriving them of that kindergarten year, especially when there is pressure on available resources. There is going to be pressure, particularly in the first couple of years, because you've got more youngsters coming into the system at the start.

So let me leave that concern with the minister and ask another question about a particular group of children, the children who are going into French immersion programs. What conditions are available for those students? It's pretty clear that for students who are coming into a program in which they are going to be working in a different language, about which most of them know nothing, the integration of a group of them who started in September and who have moved along in their ability to use their new second language with a group coming in January is going to impose very large challenges on the system.

[ Page 8184 ]

I know a number of parents of immersion children are looking to there being one start date for those children in order that the system can really function in the best interests of them doing well in their initial exposure to the language. Has the minister heard of that concern and has he responded to it? How does the system work in respect to those children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the first part of the commentary — if it wasn't a question — perhaps I can allay the member's fears about when students will move on and when they won't and that sort of thing. I will not be making those judgments. Those will be made by professional primary teachers, and I have complete faith that they will move students along as they do now in various ways — except that the new directions encourage them to use their professional judgment of when students should progress, rather than have a provincial rule that says you've got to stay in this tub for ten months rather than when the teacher feels you're ready to move. Or maybe they want to stay in that first tub, if you like, for more than the ten months. I have a lot of confidence in what the primary teachers will do with that, so I can allay those fears.

As far as French immersion is concerned, we're not treating it any differently than English immersion: it's voluntary. If students and parents choose to go the French immersion route, then why should we say it requires a different age bracket than entering an English program? I wouldn't want to say that students who enter English and become eligible at the right time may enter in January, but if they're French immersion they've got to wait until September. Why? In other words, if they're eligible to enter school, then they're eligible to enter an educational program. If that educational program happens to be delivered in French, then I don't see the problem, quite frankly.

MS. A. HAGEN: In terms of the French immersion program, suppose we're dealing with one French immersion kindergarten within a school system or a school with one kindergarten class, and we have a teacher who has in that class, let's say, 15 students, and they know that there are going to be another five or six coming in January. The concern is that the teacher has a different challenge facing her in integrating those students than the teacher who has students coming into a program in their birth language.

This concern has been expressed by parents of students in French immersion. They feel that this is going to present some problems for the integration of children. I have every faith, as you do, that teachers can accommodate a lot of individual needs, but the concern has certainly been expressed about the program. The minister is basically saying: no difference here. He's not responding to the concern. These kids are going to have the same option, even if it does present some very considerable difficulties in integration.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the difficulty for that member and for myself is to get out of our grade-structured mind-set. We are now talking about 15 students, and there's nothing in this world that says that if another 15 show up, you've got to take those 15 and put them in with these 15. There's nothing in the professional judgment of teachers that says to group them together or do them separately, The schools, I think, can handle that situation. I think we have to get away from thinking that these new students are going to come in halfway after the others and that sort of thing. A certain number of students are required in order for French immersion to be there.

I'm tempted to answer from the mind-set of the old grade structures: they are in kindergarten for so long, and then there's another set of hoops called grade 1, and another set of hoops called grade 2, and that sort of thing. But let's think for a moment of students in their peer groups, given the opportunity to learn in the situation, not having an artificial line or artificial number of hoops — maybe it's progression. Again, the situation of "what if" is hard for me to answer, unless I go back and say yes, they're in this box and so you can't put them in another box. They are students; they can mix as they do now. Students at any level in English or French immersion all enter with varying levels of abilities. Why don't we just take them from where they are and proceed in their interests?

MS. MARZARI: This is a perfect place for me to interject, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the minister's suggestion that we should eliminate those artificial barriers, that we should be able to slot students into the system at the point of entry that they're ready for and that they should be able to move through the system at the rate of their own readiness and development. I think you're quite right and our critic is quite right that teachers can accommodate. Teachers have been asking for many years for this very system of ungraded elementary. In fact, the more — I would like to think — progressive teachers have been talking about eliminating all artificial lines in our educational system and moving students as they develop, as your act puts it, in their intellectual, social, educational and career development.

However, I think that as we approach section 3 — the entry level; kindergarten — I'd like to enter the debate to talk about some inconsistencies and some mixed and conflicting messages about the system that the bill has offered to teachers and parents. Some of these messages revolve around a spirit of good intent, which gets translated into very cumbersome and difficult machinery.

For example, we talk a lot in the Sullivan commission about citizenship, and you talk a lot about social and intellectual development. Yet I think that by moving in this bill towards a home-schooling approach and by moving towards private schools in Bill 68, we really are moving away from citizenship and the public development of citizenship in a public system.

[ Page 8185 ]

For another example, we talk a great deal in the Sullivan commission and I think the bill tries to talk, to some extent, about expanding the teacher's role as mentor, expanding the teacher's role and reaffirming the teacher's role in the classroom. Yet there is no mention anywhere in the bill or in the regulations about class sizes and about reducing class sizes to enable the teacher to be able to do a more effective job.

There is even a suggestion that a teacher may be assisted in a new way, in a way which is threatening to many teachers. Assistants will, by virtue of this bill, be doing a lot of the jobs that teachers do now, and there is no careful line drawn around what assistants will be doing under a teacher's supervision or how many assistants will be brought in to assist him, and no suggestion as to what professional jobs these assistants will be taking on.

There is a suggestion that we reaffirm the public system, and yet in that reaffirmation we also talk about ways in which grade 11 and grade 12 might be pushed out into the private sector. We are basically enforcing kindergarten and making it almost mandatory by bringing five-year-olds into the system, and yet at the other end of the system we are suggesting that we might privatize grade 11 and grade 12. We are encouraging private schools in Bill 68.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How did you get that started?

MS. MARZARI: Well, as we go through the bill, you will see that there are a number of places where services might be contracted, where certain courses might be privatized in the system. There is a serious concern about a leaving certificate at the end of grade 10 and then students being left on their own for grade 11 and grade 12 to the private market. That has been mentioned more than once — post-Sullivan commission, Mr. Minister, in case you didn't know.

We have some conflicting messages, and here in section 3, when we are talking about kindergarten, is perhaps the point to raise this theme that will be coming to you through many of my colleagues over the next day or so. Here in section 3, where we have this staggered entry of five-year-olds into the system, my colleague has suggested to you that she is not quite sure whether it accomplishes the ends which you wish to see accomplished.

[8:00]

Obviously section 3 cannot be taken in isolation from the K-to-3 integration of the grades. This staggered entry obviously is a logical progression towards the non-graded K to 3. Yet the inconsistency here, if I can put it to you, although it is not explicit in section 3, is that as the students are going through kindergarten to the third grade, a number of things happen. First of all, where they come from, perhaps a child care setting, and where they are going, perhaps grade 4, have not been really prepared for this change in the system. You are creating a rather radical innovation in a system which is not yet prepared, in a system which has not had the lead time to be able to prepare effectively. Neither the day care system in the province nor, I think, the later grades are at this point in any position to effectively deal with this staggered entry.

The second point I want to raise here is that the benchmark system of assessing these children from kindergarten to grade 3, in the process of marking them, in a sense, from what I have heard, imposes a whole new level, a whole new stratum of examination and testing procedures on these young children, which could in effect have the very same stratifying or institutionalizing influence that the grade system does now.

I would like to ask the minister if he has any comments on both the benchmark grading system, which, I gather, comes along with this package, and the system preparation that has not occurred to this date for bringing this new staggered-entry process into the system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is difficult for me to defend the ghosts and goblins that have been created by propaganda items or for whatever reason. Nowhere in this act does it mention, and nowhere in our policies have we said, that everything will change in this world on September 8, 1989. We have said consistently that it is going to be an evolutionary process, that the system and the preparation and the evaluation and the monitoring and the assessment are all going to be worked out. A lot of work has been done in the primary. There is work going on as this progresses through. So when you say that the whole system isn't ready for radical innovation.... I thank you for that; it's the highest praise I've had yet. Of course, in a sense it is a radical innovation, in that finally we're saying that the system should accommodate the best interests of the students and should accommodate the ability of the professional teachers to deliver the programs, to judge and monitor progress.

The benchmarks will have to be developed; they will have to be different; they will no longer be ten hoops. The hoops may be skill levels that the people develop. But of course it won't happen overnight, and of course the system isn't prepared for what's going to happen in grade 4. But I'll tell you who's going to prepare that system: the teachers who are operating in it, with the parents and the others. They are the ones preparing the programs.

As for the member's comments about citizenship, I don't know. If students are given the opportunity to learn at their level about a variety of things and pursue their interests while they're learning reading instead of a controlled vocabulary reader, I think that has all the potential for a much greater citizenship — you can read what's going on in the world today, not in a textbook that was developed 15 years ago and is too expensive to replace or we haven't had time to replace. Reading materials — all of that — certainly enable citizenship to happen.

I don't know where you get the propaganda that any of us ever intended to privatize and turn the kids loose in grades 11 and 12.

[ Page 8186 ]

MR. BARNES: Small print in the act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's nowhere in the act, nowhere in the policy statement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know where you get the base from, but it's a completely distorted version of the Sullivan report and anything else that has been proposed here. The whole thrust of this is to enable students to complete grade 12 and to encourage students to graduate.

Let's suppose that given these greater opportunities to learn, greater variation, greater alternatives in the public school system.... Perhaps it will enhance the attraction of the public school system rather than have it deteriorate, because the public school system can serve.... Many students have gone out of the public school system because they said: "I'm tired of reading that stuff." The system — thank goodness the teachers haven't always followed the system — has said: "Shut up, kid. You can't study this, because it doesn't come up for two years." So they've gone to an independent school to do it.

If the public school offers those opportunities, if students want to study something else that they're ready for, then I think it's an attraction to keep kids in the schools. We're optimistic enough that we think.... We've got about a 30 percent dropout before grade 12 now, and we're already looking at.... We've got to have more money in place, because we think it's going to work and that we're going to keep a lot more of those students in school. Why? Because it will be an opportunity to interest them, to let them pursue their skills and ability, and to create more creative people, not to make slower students slower learners, which might be just a factor of age — not to discourage them and make them feel like failures because they didn't jump through hoop No. 7 at the same time as everybody who was different from them.

I guess I'd better just try and answer your question, because I get quite excited about the potential in this: the enhancement of the education system, the enhancement of education opportunities for children, and none of the things that the gloom-and-doomers have tried in the propaganda war. They attack the thing without looking at what it's really all about None of those things needs to fit into the system Somebody can always find a way to destroy good potential, but I'm optimistic that most people in this world will look for the opportunity and the potential that this provides. I guess I have a lot of faith in that, because many teachers have already done it. They haven't gone by the rigid prescription of the system If I may say it again, what this is doing is saying that the system shall now accommodate the professional judgment of the teachers and the interests, needs and abilities of the students.

MS. MARZARI: At the risk of talking off section 3, I do think I began by talking about some of the inconsistencies and mixed messages that are being given. I think I should tell the minister that he himself has said that this is enabling legislation, and it is the first major renovation to the School Act in some number of years. It is a result of the Sullivan commission, and we haven't had a similar commission since the early forties, I gather. This is a piece of enabling legislation that comes out of many years of thought and process, and as a piece of enabling legislation, I would like to see it doing more of what the minister himself is saying he would like to see done.

Everything you're saying on your feet sounds fine, Mr. Minister. Yet when I turn to section 104, when you talk about purchasing managerial or other services with respect to the operation of schools, and when I turn to section 26, which, it seems to me, talks about a restriction on the teachers' bargaining rights, then I get concerned that what you've said about teachers being infinitely adaptable and amenable and about a system which, although it's like a rhinoceros with tennis shoes, is gradually going to be dragged into the twentieth century, and maybe even into the twenty-first.... I don't see the enabling ability in many of these clauses. What I do see, in many instances, is a grinding away of rights, privileges and freedoms which have been long fought for by the profession, and a grinding away of the public system itself.

I want to believe the things you are saying on your feet, but I can't make them correspond with many of the clauses I see in the bill, section 3 being one of those.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You also have to read section 19, rather than say that the contracting-out.... Those clauses that the member refers to deal with the right and the opportunity for boards to hire people to assist teachers. If you look at section 19, you'll find it says that they may not hire anyone other than a qualified teacher to teach; and when they hire somebody to assist, it's under the supervision of a teacher. For the life of me, I can't see how the starting age and everything else in section 3 got us into all this. We'll take a run at it when it comes up later.

MR. BARNES: Just for the minister's information, the BCTFs critique specified two sections that deal with the possibility of privatization: sections 94 (6) and 1040) (a). We're just bringing to your attention that there was some critique and some concern. We're not up to that yet, but that's what we are making reference to.

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're supposed to be on section 3. I notice members jumping from one section to another. We might be able to make some progress if we stay on the section that we should be addressing. I wish all members of the House would follow the rules accordingly.

[ Page 8187 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member, and I think all members of the House will learn from your comments. Yes, the Chair has been rather liberal in allowing the debate to range rather widely. We do have a very comprehensive and very important bill, and we wish to canvass it fully.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just a brief comment and a question to the minister. Let me tie it to section 4, which says a student has the right to consult with the professionals — a teacher or an administrative officer — in regard to that student's educational program. It's good to see that in the act. But I notice that when it defines the duties of the student, that student does as he's told. Perhaps that's the way it should be, but I'm not sure this is what the minister has been talking about when he talked about what's going to happen to youngsters in the system. "A student shall comply...." "A student...shall participate in educational programs...." Is that a necessary clause, or is there something better we could do to have the student participate in developing the rules under which the student is going to work, whether it's in kindergarten or grade 12? Can't we find better language than this as far as duties of students are concerned, to empower them with some decision-making in a democratic way in the school system in which they are going to spend 12 or 13 years of their lives?

[8:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I find that comment somewhat strange, following the admonition of the Chair that we were not following the House rules — us wise adults who have to have rules of conduct in order to have the system work. Of course students are given the right to consult, but I don't think the system is ready yet to give them the right to run the school. There's nothing in this legislation that prevents those rules of conduct from being worked out from within the school system, just as it's worked out in this House. I'm not quite sure how far the member wants to go in saying this shouldn't be necessary.

Interjection,

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Part of it requires that students "shall participate" in an educational program. I guess that's what you call the seat-warmer clause from the old legislation: they can't come there and just take up space. They're supposed to learn something.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have to admit I've become disenchanted with the school system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! Really?

MR. WILLIAMS: For my colleagues, this is no surprise. Having a daughter who was smart enough to drop out and do better, I have all the sympathy in the world for her abandoning an inner-city high school that was inadequate, and that's being kind.

But when I see this I have to applaud the minister for finally admitting to the unwritten agenda of the public school system: the duties of students. They .shall comply" with the rules authorized by the principal of the school, etc. Come on! This is really what has bothered me about the educational system, particularly at the high school level. It's hierarchy, it's obedience, it's accepting the bell-ringing and moving in lock-step at times, but I'm pleased that the minister has....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's saying: "What would you have other than this?" This is the old school inspector, the old school principal asking: "What else would you have but these duties to march in line and be part of some kind of program" — which I'm afraid the system all too often indeed is. It's a neat point. One could ask why. Clearly the minister thinks this is the way it should be, and it's in tune with his thinking. In a sense I say, okay, the unwritten agenda is at least becoming a little clearer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't resist the opportunity to respond to that. I can see why that member would be bothered by any mention of rules, with his actions in the House at times. Even the rules here bother him, and they're made up by the members for the benefit of the members. I'm sure the member has been at some meetings; there are rules of conduct at meetings in order for something to happen. It sure beats anarchy.

That member's opening comment was that his daughter was smart enough to drop out of the system. I tried to explain, had he been here earlier, that the opportunity now is that they may not need to drop out; they may be given the opportunity to learn to the extent of their abilities. It's really terrific stuff, but there have to be some rules. It doesn't mean there have to be many rules, and we've come a long way in the school system from the dinosaur age of everybody marching in line and standing out there. I hope none of that happens anymore. I know that in some schools there are three simple rules: don't hurt anybody else, be considerate of others and give others the opportunity to learn. That covers everything, and within that you can do it.

I have never supported the rigid checklist of rules and would never support it now. But to say that no student shall be subject to a code of conduct established in the school is saying that no member of this Legislature should be compelled to obey the rules of conduct established by the members of this House, and I can't accept that either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Nanaimo requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 8188 ]

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER: I've just been made aware that in the members' gallery are two very dear friends of mine — both teachers, of course. I would like the House to help me welcome Don and Bonnie Sutherland.

MR. LOVICK: Just to pursue that matter of duties of students, it's interesting to note that the minister, in response to my colleague from Vancouver East, sidestepped what is probably the fundamental question we're raising here, a question that quite frankly is offered in all seriousness: namely, why is this section here? It is not the case that the alternative to this section is something that says you don't have to obey the rules; that's simply not the case; that's not logical.

Clearly what is offered in this particular section of the bill is a kind of highlighting of the necessity for obedience, and that's the concern that we have here: that we don't tell the students that what we want them to do is to learn and to become authentic, questioning, critical, lively human beings. Instead, when we talk about the duties of the students, the only thing we have to say in effect is that they must obey the rules.

I will repeat my question for the benefit of the minister: why do we do that? Is this to protect ourselves against students who might say they're not sure they can handle or deal with the curriculum, not sure they can handle what the authorities perceive to be the necessary discipline?

To be quite truthful, Mr. Minister, as somebody who spent about 20 years in the education system — granted, the post-secondary education system, but nonetheless somebody who has some sense of commitment to what it's about and what we're trying to accomplish in the name of education — I do not in all honesty understand the need for this section, and I would ask the minister if he could educate us on this side of the House as to why we have it here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Obviously I am not having much luck, Mr. Chairman, in saying that rules of conduct are required in any situation. Just because you choose to interpret that as blind obedience or blind adherence to some stupid set of rules doesn't mean that I do. "...a student shall comply with the school rules authorized by the principal of the school or provincial school...attended by the student...as the case may be." Somebody has to have a check on that, with the code of conduct and other rules and policies of the board or provincial school, as the case may be.

The corollary to that, I guess, would be that we put in a section saying that no student shall be required to conduct themselves according to the code of conduct in the school; no student shall be required to follow any rules. Would you settle for that in this House? Would you settle for it in any meeting? Would you settle for it anywhere else in this society? You say that there should be no requirement in school for anybody to follow a code of conduct or rules. I think you have to have them.

In this act, the duties and responsibilities of students, parents, boards and the minister are spelled out. You are saying that there should be absolutely no requirement for any code of conduct in a school. Maybe you can accept that, but I'd hate to think, as wise as we are in this Legislature, if there were no rules that we were required to follow...

MR. LOVICK: I don't know whether the minister is deliberately attempting to be obtuse or whether he simply is. I explained to him the intent of my question. I tried to indicate to him why I was asking the question. My essential point is: why have we felt the need to remind students within the public education system that they must obey the rules? Why is that here? Nobody questions the need for a code of conduct; we all live by one. It would seem to me, if we want to talk seriously about the duties of Students, that we ought to talk about responsibility to one's fellow students. We ought to talk seriously about some commitment to the learning enterprise, not to some kind of mindless obedience to a set of rules that may be capricious, arbitrary or entirely unjustified.

Again, I come back to my question: why is this section here? What are you afraid of, Mr. Minister, that you need this particular section of the bill? Why is it here? Try again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess it is a matter of interpretation. Why is there a requirement anywhere that there should be some rules followed when those rules are developed? Those rules can be very simple. They don't have to be what you have in your mind — a checklist of rules that somebody arbitrarily makes up. The best rules in the system are those that are followed because of responsibility. That's the whole intent of the act. We are all responsible adults, so we should say: "Let's throw away the rule book. We don't need a Speaker in here."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know, but I get excited when you attack me in your monosyllabic hyperbole and your total commitment to some notion that you want to hang on to.

Why should there be a requirement? Most people don't need it. When somebody challenges the rules, there is a requirement that they be enforceable. Most people don't need to be told to drive on the right side of the road. But if somebody chooses to drive over that painted line and take a risk on spending their $75....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member missed that. It was strictly for his purposes.

To say that there should be no statement that you should drive on the right side of the road.... It's in

[ Page 8189 ]

the interests of all of the other students and everybody else in that school to have a code of conduct and to have rules. Your connotation of the code of conduct and the rules may be something that you're used to from your own mind-set. This simply means that there has to be the ability to apply rules, if they mean anything in our society.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is the first clause that deals with parents' entitlements and responsibilities in which the famous words "with the orders of the minister" appear. It's the most consistent theme in the act. I lost count of all of the clauses that come from the orders of the minister.

I'd like to start right off the bat by asking the minister why the orders of the minister are required for a parent of a student attending a school to be informed of the student's attendance, behaviour and progress in school? Surely that is the most fundamental responsibility of the school and the board. I fail to see any reason why the minister needs to give orders in that regard. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's a protection built in, and it would rarely be needed. We have had some difficulty in the past with statements coming out of the ministry which were suggestions, recommendations or directives. In this legislation we tried to clarify that. If it's something that is required, it will be an order. If it's a suggestion, it will be so stated We hope to eliminate a lot of confusion over time, as these are undone.

Let's say that, through the consultative committee and the policy committee, all of the stakeholders agree that there will be three written reports sent out to parents, and that's one of the forms of reporting to parents. Having reached that consensus, somebody out there might say: "We don't believe in report cards, so we are not sending any." Those parents are just as entitled to a report card as anybody else, and that is when the orders of the minister might kick in.

[8:30]

There are many other examples of that sort of thing in this case. While you've made quite an issue of the orders of the minister appearing repeatedly in this, I think you will find that it's generally confined to a very specific situation. And I think it is necessary.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister says that there is a due process that will inform the orders of the minister. Could he advise us where in the act those connections are clearly made, so we know that no order of the minister will come without consultation? How do we know that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You don't, because nowhere in the act does it spell out all the orders that the minister may anticipate making for the next 20 years.

MS. A. HAGEN: We're used to legislation that talks about the act and regulations. The act is something that we are dealing with in this bill; it will be an act. Regulations are published; in fact, there are draft regulations in circulation at this time. How are we to know about the orders of the minister? How are we to be aware of what orders the minister has issued? Who will have access to those orders? Will they be public? Will they be subject to scrutiny? Will they be numbered, so we have some means of knowing whether we are at order 1 or at order 999? What are the guidelines that we are going to have about ministerial orders?

There are a significant number of clauses that deal with ministerial orders. They significantly affect the life of every student, parent, teacher, administrative officer, trustee and all the other people who work in the system. We want to have some idea of how these orders are going to be made known to all of us, as they come down from on high.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The only orders that I could make that wouldn't become public are to myself in the mirror perhaps, and then I might not obey them. If the minister is going to make an order for the school system, that order will be sent out. I will not assure the member that I am going to send that order out to three million people in British Columbia, but the very fact that an order is to be made.... It is a directive to somebody to do something, so I can't keep it a secret if I am going to make an order.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to deal with this right now, because that gets it off the plate with all the other clauses that have the order of the minister. Perhaps the minister could clarify where this will be public. I see every order-in-council that comes out regarding regulations; those are available to us. How are people going to know what these orders are? Is it going to be something between the minister and school staffs? Are parents going to be informed of the minister's orders in respect to students' attendance, behaviour and progress in school? If the minister makes those orders, does the parent have any say in whether those are appropriate orders for how the school is going to report on his or her child?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I tried to cover earlier that we are trying through a consultation process and a discussion process to determine how many formal reporting periods there shall be in a year. When we have reached a consensus the order would kick in. It's a requirement that every school district comply with the opinion that has been arrived at.

I can't take the member through exactly what is going to happen in every case, but when the orders are made, they will obviously affect school districts or schools. That is public information, and I would

[ Page 8190 ]

think that with parent advisory councils required in each school, one of the arrangements that could be made is that the parents would see all of the orders from the minister.

We have every intention of going through what has gone out in the past. Everybody is confused about whether it's an order, a directive or a suggestion. We have every intention of going through — as we get this act into effect — to limit the number of direct orders, clarify them and publish them in a book that will be available. If the member wants to be on the mailing-list for that book, I would certainly be delighted to do that. I can't do that if every person in British Columbia wants to be on the mailing-list, but I can certainly assure the member that through the process, through the network, anyone who wants to know what's an order will be able to have access to what is an order.

MS. A. HAGEN: It is interesting that the example that the minister has used of an order he might issue is, in fact, in the draft regulations at this time. I am not going to continue with that point; I think it's one where a lot of what the minister is talking about could clearly be in regulations rather than in orders, and they could be published and available to people as a matter of course, just as the bill that we are debating will be available to people as well.

Let me get to the substance of this particular clause, which is parent entitlement. I am indebted to a proposal about the School Act legislation that has come from the parent-teacher home and school group. I have had numerous letters from parent advisory councils across the province talking about what they call the "counterproposal School Act legislation." I must say that it is singular in its readability and in its empowerment.

It notes that individual parents should be entitled to participate in the process of determining their child's educational needs and program of instruction and of determining the educational goals, policies and services provided for their children. That is an entitlement, and it is one that I in my brief to the minister earlier urged should be available.

This particular clause is again that kind of supplicant thing. The parent is entitled to be informed. Is that the passive voice? I was an English teacher once, but I have sort of forgotten. "To be informed about" — passive voice instead of active voice. Instead of being entitled to participate, the person is passively there to receive this information. On request, they get an annual report. It's not something that goes to them as a matter of course. In fact, they have to be supplicants to belong to a parents' advisory council. It's something that, in the next clause, they have to go to the board to ask for.

The counterproposal is singular in its clarity. The parents are entitled to participate. They are entitled to be informed. They are entitled to examine all the official reports, and so on. When we get to the advisory council — just to continue, although it's the next section — parents are entitled to a democratically elected parent council for public education. The word "democratically" could appear in this act somewhere if we were talking about it, at least in respect to parent advisory councils. And: "Parents of children registered in the school shall make rules respecting the establishment of the parent council for public education, the bylaws governing its meetings and the business and conduct of its affairs."

Parents understand what empowerment and entitlement are; and they have, in fact, briefed the minister on those kinds of clauses. Instead, we have in both this clause, section 7, which we are looking at, and in the next clause something which has parents as supplicants.

I want to ask the minister why we can't clearly state that parents who are partners in education and who have every right to be actively involved in planning for and participating in the education of their children.... Why do we have to have this kind of language that has them going through hoops and has them passive rather than active in respect to how their entitlements and responsibilities are defined in the act? For an act that was supposed to be accessible to parents, neither of those clauses, I think, really do a smidgen of what they should do to empower parents in terms of their involvement with the school system, and I think that's unfortunate.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether that member is reading from the act or from some other proposal, and I don't know whether we have grown up with different dictionaries. "Entitled" to me means that they have the right, the requirement, to be informed, and not in a supplicant way. They are entitled to get attendance reports. In other sections of the act it says they are entitled to consult with the teacher regarding the educational program, that they are a participant to the extent that they want to be. Do you say full participants? In other sections you are objecting to anybody else being allowed to teach, and if the parents are going to be full participants, then they can come into the classroom and teach. So I think you have to make up your mind on that one.

This is an empowerment, if you like, that nobody can deny them these reports. They are entitled to them. Is that a different definition, or are you getting another one from somewhere else? Where is this supplication? Where is it that they have to beg for information when it says "parents' entitlements and responsibilities" and "parents' advisory council." They are now entitled to have a council at each school if they so request it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Power to the people.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think that's fine. Let's give the power to the people. They are entitled to do that, but I guess you're saying that any parent should come in on any chosen day and run the school the way they want to.

[ Page 8191 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's committee stage. Can we keep to the strictly relevant part of it? There's nothing in here about parents running schools.

MS. A. HAGEN: The Chairperson came in in the midst of this discussion, and I know it's a little difficult sometimes to pick up the thread. Certainly we have been leaning a little toward the next clause, because we're dealing here with the division that deals with parents. I hope that the Chair will recognize that it's a method of expediting our discussion.

The minister has not commented about the parents' entitlement to participate in determining their children's educational needs as well as their program of instruction. Does he consider that (2) covers it fully, with "the parent...may...and...shall consult...with respect to the student's educational program"? I read that, quite honestly, as a supplicant thing: here's the program that's established; we're not participating in it.

I must say, going back to the first clause, that if I were a parent reading, "A parent of a student attending a school is entitled to be informed, in accordance with the orders of the minister, of the student's attendance, behaviour and progress in school," I might just be a bit intimidated instead of thinking it was a right. I'm really talking about the language in the act that makes the entitlements accessible, in the real sense of the word, to parents.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. A. HAGEN: We spoke briefly a moment ago about the parents' advisory council. Can the minister tell us why it's necessary for a parents' group to apply to the board to establish a council and why it is the board or the minister that will establish the council rather than the parents themselves? Subsections (1) and (2) again place parents, in my view, in a supplicant role. It's hardly a right when you have to go to the board and say, "We want to have a parents' advisory council," and then the next clause says that the board will establish a parents' advisory council. If it's to be a parents' advisory council, surely, as the counterproposal from the home and school group says, parents are entitled to form democratically elected parent councils for public education. Isn't that what we're talking about? Why do we have language like this in the act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we try to explain these things, and in the language we try to reflect those explanations. Parents of students attending a school may apply to establish a parents' advisory council for the school; they don't have to We're not going to shut down a school if they don't want one, but they may apply to establish a council.

You'll notice that the second section says that when they do apply, the board doesn't have the choice to say that they don't want a parents' advisory council. The board shall establish a council.

[8:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: Why is the board establishing it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The parents set up the council. "To establish" means that they can't deny the existence of the council. In the case of the minister, you will note that it refers specifically to a provincial school, because a provincial school is run under the jurisdiction of the minister. Therefore it would be pointless for them to apply to a board in that case and to set up their own council and say to the minister: "We're keeping it a secret from you." Let's look at what it says altogether.

I don't know if that clarifies it for the member. They may want to establish a council; they don't have to. If they say they want to, then the board cannot deny that; neither can the minister. May, shall — is it fairly clear now?

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister is avoiding the question. Why can't it simply happen? Why are there those steps? Why is the board establishing a council? What has the board got to do with establishing a council if it's a parents' council?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm all for it. The parents will establish the council, if you want to put that connotation on it, and the board will be required to accept that establishment.

MS. MARZARI: Let's come at it from a slightly different angle. I happen to live in a neighbourhood that has a community school. The school is 75 years old now; it just had its seventy-fifth anniversary a few weeks ago. To that anniversary came many people in the neighbourhood who graduated from the school 50 or 60 years ago. People still live in my community who were there 60 years ago, which is difficult to believe in an urban community.

Many of these people have taken an active interest in the school over the years. One or two of them, as a matter of fact, actively volunteer in that school. We have one octogenarian who actually shows up daily to have children read to her. If there was to be a parents' committee under this bill, Mrs. Stewart wouldn't be eligible to sit on it. She's not a parent of any children in the school. Neither would many of the other volunteers in the community who work at the school and who care about it be eligible to sit on this committee.

If any parents who presently sit on the school consultative committee were told that there's a new piece of legislation coming down whereby they actually have to apply to the board to be a parent consultative committee or a parents' advisory council, they'd be quite shocked by the fact that they were legislated into asking the board. I think my colleague and I are both saying: why not let each school determine how they want to set up their advisory committee, whether it's a consultative committee, a

[ Page 8192 ]

home and school association, a parents' group or whatever it is? Why not let each board determine how it wants to relate to the parents under its jurisdiction? Why should this be in the bill? Why do we need a piece of legislation?

You are the minister who stood up and said: "Let's break new territory. Let's create new systems. Let's not draw the old lines. Let's create new lines of accountability and authority Let's leave it a little bit looser. Let's go with each child as it develops." Why not say that about communities? Let's take each school district, each neighbourhood, as it wants to grow and evolve. Why is section 8 necessary?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess when people want to see something negative and something wrong, then they can't see the potential or they refuse to read what the legislation says. If a parents' advisory council in a school decided to form and the school decided to ignore it, what power would they have? By bringing the board into it.... The administrative officer is an employee of the board. Therefore, if a group of parents want to have some say and want to have some effect with the school, they may apply and they cannot be denied that right. The board can force their employees to say that they can't deny this council.

If they don't want anything to do with the school and they don't want anything to do with the school district or the board, then I presume there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent them from forming a committee. Also, the final clause of this section says that a group may get together and make its own bylaws for its operation and conduct. I don't think we could open it up more to them running the situation. If we don't provide for their right to exist and no one with the right to deny them, then it would be a hollow victory, wouldn't it? That's the purpose of this. When you put all of the sections together, it does make sense. A lot of thought has gone into: how do you require this? By the people who are in authority seeing to it that it cannot be denied.

MS. A. HAGEN: I happen to agree with the minister that it is good to have a commitment in the act to such organizations. I know that sometimes they've had difficulty getting established. Could I ask the minister if there is anything in this clause that would preclude this advisory council being a parent community advisory council if that particular group of people want that to be the case? The royal commission strongly recommended that people other than parents be eligible. I know that in my own community, our 2001 committee has taken a position that the community school have a non-restrictive covenant about advisory councils. That would follow along with the idea that there would be community councils as well. Is there anything in this clause that precludes that from happening at the wish of the parents — the bylaws of the parents?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think it precludes it. On the other hand, I think it has to come as an initiative from the parents. Otherwise — and I'm going to start speculating as you do — a group could form up, form bylaws, eliminate parents and say: "We are now the group." We're saying the initiative has to be by the parents. There has to be some acceptance by the board of the bylaws, in consultation with the principal. I don't know that it precludes other members, but it's certainly directed so that parents are the ones in a parent advisory council to a school. There is nothing in this act or anywhere else to preclude any group from forming a community group to advise the board. Some communities actually elect their trustees and expect them to represent them rather than have another 16 organizations running things.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MS. A. HAGEN: A very quick question, Mr. Chairman. "Student" here is every student of every age. There is in the student record a wide range of information. Is there any kind of limit here on a student's right to information that might be on the student record form? I'm not talking about parents here; I'm talking about students.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no. If it's in the student's record — this is, if you like, a radical departure — the student and the parents are entitled to see what's in the student's file.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MS. A. HAGEN: We welcome this particular section in the act. It's the first time, to my knowledge, that there's been a formal appeal section. I think it's fairly clearcut. I particularly welcome the fact that a decision includes the failure of an employee to make a decision, which I think gives a wide range to the issues that a parent might want to appeal. Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, I've considered bringing in an amendment to this particular clause around a third-party action, which is what Mr. Sullivan recommended too. But rather than do that, I want to ask if the minister would be prepared at this time to give some commitment to monitor the situation and to be open to an additional process, based on experience.

I think it's a process that needs to have an opportunity to work its way through. But when the board is left with the final decision, the board is party to that decision and has a vested interest in that decision. Usually there is a need for due process to provide for some kind of a final appeal, where the resolution is still contentious; in this case, for the parent and student. Could the minister give us some indication of whether he would be prepared, after a year of experience with this, to revisit this and to

[ Page 8193 ]

consider an addition, based on that experience and on representations that he might receive from people who might be involved with this? It's a new initiative and one that perhaps needs to be tried, but there is that concern that there may be less than complete satisfaction with this, and there should be a third-party resolution option available, if necessary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I'm being asked to explain everything: why we got here, why we are here, and now I'm being asked to explain what I might do in two or three years. I have no problem making that commitment. I think there's plenty of evidence to indicate that we monitor whatever is going on in the system, and I am very much interested in trying to make the system work as well as possible. So yes, we would do that. But I can't accept the member's premise that where this section deals with respect to something that affects the education, health or safety of the student, the parent or the student may appeal. And that member says that the board would have a vested interest that is not in the best interest of the student. They are elected. They are accountable to the local people. And I have a lot more faith in them than that.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MS. A. HAGEN: Section 12 is one of three sections that deal with home education — a new approach to schooling in terms of the act, although we know it does exist for a number of parents who, either for a year or so or with a total commitment, make the choice to educate their children at home. I think that there are a lot of concerns about this particular initiative. I guess one can look at it from two perspectives. One can say that there is merit in accepting what does exist as a parent choice, ensuring that we as a responsible society know that the children who are not in our school system and who are being educated by parents at home know something about the educational program that they are receiving, and we have some statutory authority to monitor that.

Quite honestly, I think by and large every child should be in a school. Although I certainly acknowledge the right of parents to make those choices, I think that there are many things that students lose by virtue of not having access to a school program: in their social development, in their physical development, in their access to resources, and the opportunities for them to learn to work and play with those people who are going to form a part of the society in which they live. Be that as it may, we are looking at determination on the part of the minister to in fact enshrine this as a specific kind of education. I think what we want to do, then, is to understand how this is going to work.

I asked the minister earlier about what in fact defines home education. I note that in section 12 it says that the parent may educate the child at home or elsewhere, in accordance with this division. What does "or elsewhere" mean from the point of view of the minister?

[9:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We're trying, Mr. Chairman, to be as permissive as possible. If they choose to home-school the student under that broad definition, we don't want to deprive them of the right to do that in their neighbour's house.

MS. A. HAGEN: What would the status be of nine children being educated in a neighbour's house?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess it could be whatever they like. Once they have ten students, then they have to designate themselves as a school — public or independent — and follow all those rules, But up to nine, we've left that in place.

MS. A. HAGEN: Does the minister define that as home schooling?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess if it is schooling and these students are getting an educational program and it's happening in the home, then I would be inclined to at least allow them to call it home schooling.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's quite interesting that in another act the minister defines a whole range of schools but doesn't deal with this issue. This is in section 13 of Bill 68. I know the Chairman might say that I'm ranging far afield, but there are connections between these two acts, and we have to follow the threads wherever we find them. "No person shall provide or purport to provide schooling to persons of school age other than in...." However, we are talking at this stage of an undefined method of education, a schooling that may in fact not be home schooling at all, but an independent school by another name, by a name that is not defined in either of the two acts we're dealing with. Why not?

MR. WILLIAMS: I just would like to say that I appreciate seeing this recognition of home schooling. I think it's an intriguing trend in North America. Some parents are beginning to vote with their feet, because they think the system is hopelessly inadequate in terms of their goals for their children. I can understand it perfectly, because when I look at this statute, I find that in terms of the substance of what an education might be, there is very little there indeed. All I see here — and some of my colleagues are into this — is process, process, process, and rules. I commend parents who want children who are genuinely literate and able to be outside of straitjacket convention, and parents who want to pass on some of the important values that they have.

I have a cousin who lives on Denman Island. She and her husband are both graduates of our universities here. Their young daughter went to the public school system there, and they told her: "Kate, you're

[ Page 8194 ]

going into the public system, and if you don't like it we'll have a meeting." Three months later they had a meeting, and she's back home. And I'll tell you, she's learning a lot better in that household than she would have in the public school system.

Now I know it's a small minority, but it is a thoughtful minority who are moving towards home schooling. I say they are to be encouraged. We take some risk with it — I recognize that — but it's the risk that we take in a democracy with respect to everything. There's no doubt in my mind that the great majority of the kids who come out of the home schooling exercise will be able to contribute more to our society, because what I find again and again is that I'm disturbed by the unwritten agenda of the system that too many kids are a product of. Too much spirit is repressed in this school system of ours for the sake of rules, for the sake of process, for the sake of God knows what. For that handful I say Godspeed; I think we should give them some public money to boot or reduce their taxes or something, because they're willing to put a great effort in.

I know that my cousin and her husband will put in far more time than most of us are willing to contribute toward our children, and that's good news indeed for the future of society. I think if we track the future of those kids without impeding what they do and without bureaucratizing the process, there may indeed be some lessons for the public system that would be highly beneficial.

MS. MARZARI: I think all of us have had experience. I certainly have had the experience of having taken my children out of school for six months, and in the process of touring Europe ended up with two children who were far advanced beyond the school curricula. When they came back, their teachers were amazed at how well they had done, basically by just studying from their books in the back of the family camping van.

There are wonderful stories to be told by us as individuals about the virtues of home schooling or keeping your kids at home or taking them out of school, but one cannot extrapolate from that experience — personal, relative or otherwise — that there is a depth of thought going on in the home school movement which surpasses understanding and which we should automatically start thinking about funding and finding in it the logical extension of our disillusionment with the public school system.

If anything, it would seem to me the call for home schooling is indicative of a failure of the public system which we must redress, and redress as quickly as possible, rather than finding ways to splinter a universally accessible, comprehensive system of education that we have spent many decades and many generations building up. A system such as the school system we may have many complaints about, but it is up to us, I think, as people of reasonable goodwill in a democratic society to ensure that our public system is the best it can possibly be before we start to shop about for alternatives, one of those alternatives being home schooling, another being private systems of education.

By legitimizing and giving such credence to the home-schooling movement in this bill, I would think we are admitting failure, and by pursuing it and trying to give some definition to it, we are abrogating our responsibility to further build, expand, develop, refine and create a public school system that we can be truly proud of. No, I don't see a depth of thought in the home-schooling movement. I don't see a nonconformity necessarily in the home-schooling movement. In fact, it's entirely possible that an even more rigid form of conformity can be emerging in the home-schooling movement, particularly if one thinks of small groups of nine students functioning in communities throughout our province with their own particular agenda.

The minister and I, in a previous discussion this evening, were talking about citizenship. He suggested that citizenship could be developed by a parent working with a child at home or in a small educational setting in an isolated community, or in an urban community where the student and parent or teacher are isolated from the community at large. It is the act of isolation itself that concerns me. I'll quote from Dr. Charles Ungerleider, who wrote a paper on the royal commission for the B.C. School Trustees' Association in January of this year:

"The connection is obvious between democracy and public schooling. Democracies do not truly exist in the absence of a free public and universal system of schooling. Education is a process of leading people out or away from the narrow confines of ignorance toward an active role as citizens in a democracy. On granting legitimacy to home schooling one wonders whether the government has unintentionally given support to a practice that may provide a challenge to the very institutions, the democratic institutions, we most cherish and require."

When I realize that sections 13 and 14 follow from section 12, 1 look at our communities' intervention into an undefined area of schooling, into one which has not proven itself, one where I can see no substantive studies to suggest to me that in fact we are going to be able to effectively monitor the home-schooling system, which is what it will become with this new form of legitimacy. I see a system of untracked, unmonitored students allowed to register in private schools which themselves are one step removed from the public school system. I see us in the public school system building almost a much too heavy layer of record-keeping and information-gathering about our public school students, tracking and monitoring them to within an inch of their lives; yet in the private school system and the home education system I see no such tracking, no such monitoring and no such care about standards.

Whether or not the level of information-keeping is desirable, I see no attempt here in the home-schooling system to do anything but make sure these students are enrolled by September 30 in the school of their choice, public or private. So I have to express serious reservations about the home-school system, and most particularly about how a child who is

[ Page 8195 ]

suspected by a neighbour of not receiving proper treatment gets reported. That's section 14, which I'll deal with later.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. MILLER: I have some concerns. I can subscribe to a lot of the notions that have been raised with respect to education. I tend to see more. I guess maybe it's a function of the age difference between what I perceive, at least, to be younger people's attitude towards education.... As a parent I have always worried about relevance and about the education process being stimulating. In connection with home schooling, I can perceive advantages. On the other hand, I can perceive that there has to be some process of monitoring. I debated internally whether I was being overly cautious in terms of this particular section.

We do have the facility to influence young people tremendously. They do follow our lead. There may be people who would not be good home-schoolers of their children; I think we have to acknowledge that. There may in fact be people who would be prepared to teach their children things that we would disagree with or that society at large would disagree with. This is a very difficult area.

[9:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Just like the public system.

MR. MILLER: I have not always agreed with all of it. In fact, I have got my own children in trouble for agreeing with them — not all of the time, but occasionally. I am interested in the minister responding in terms of this monitoring process.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I can foresee a situation, for example, where some kind of testing would be done on a student to determine whether or not they were being adequately taught and whether the student was failing. Perhaps it's not because the students themselves are limited and don't have the comprehension. It could be because the people doing the teaching are not adequate for the job. I think it's a very difficult area to monitor, and I would like to hear the minister talk a little bit about....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, I hope it's not overly long, Mr. First Member for Vancouver South. Every time I get up and you heckle me, I have to repeat my thanks for your statements during the last election, when you said that only those who could afford it should go to school.

MR. R. FRASER: You only got it half right, but that's usual for the NDP. Resign.

MR. MILLER: I was speaking out of turn. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman; I digress. That member for Vancouver South continually tries to throw me off and to cause me to stray from the topic at hand. But I shall resist the temptation and await the minister's response.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you ready for this? How long a response do you want?

We have tried to make the section very readable, very clear, very concise, very simple and in plain language. It says that if the child is not registered, we don't know about them. If a person believes a child is not getting an educational program, then.... We kicked this around quite a few places, but we decided that the superintendent of schools of the district in which the child resides should seek out some way. Is the child registered, or are they getting educational programs so that there is not an abuse?

We don't intend to go in — as the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey stated — to monitor and test them and keep the rule of the state on everything they do. If they have tests in evidence — as many home-schoolers do — and they are very committed, and the student is reading.... You might find out that with the individual attention they get, the student can do mathematics and is reading far beyond anything that is happening anywhere else.

That's all that section says: the superintendent can check into it. While we are on this section, it almost seems that the previous member was so concerned that they were starting to say that the public school system is inadequate. I will never accept that. The public school system does a wonderful, remarkable job for the vast majority of students in this province.

What Sullivan found when he went around this province was that there was a diversity of opinion, and there were people out there who said: "We are not trying to knock the system, but we would like the right to choose to send them to another school or to educate them at home if we are willing to put the time into it." We should acknowledge that; so this is acknowledged: the right, the acknowledgement and simple protection against abuse.

You have to understand that before this acknowledgement of home schooling was in legislation, it was illegal. Therefore all the forces and everything could come in if there was some neglect proven. Now we're saying that it's okay to keep your child at home. Then you have to build in protection so it is not abused. That is as simple and as concise as I can possibly be — to give the people a choice; not to set up an alternative system, not to undermine a very good public school system, not to do any of those things, but to give people that choice.

MR. MILLER: I don't think that any of us have spoken against offering that choice. It's a question of the process that's in place to monitor from a couple of points of view. I equally support the public school system. It has allowed, in many instances, if you go back, the elimination of class. Education always gives

[ Page 8196 ]

people the right and the ability to operate in a free and democratic society.

I was talking particularly about the very few words contained in section 14 that allow the system — in this case the superintendent — to monitor to see if a child is receiving an adequate home education. Surely if we require, as we do, that children between certain ages must be exposed to a public education — that's a requirement that the state imposes; it's not Big Brotherism or anything else — then we should also have an adequate system to monitor. We have elaborate systems in our public schools to monitor the performance of teachers. We're talking about quite elaborate systems of monitoring the ability of students and comparing it in various parts of the province. We've seen — I don't use the word fear — the concern generated by the electronic monitoring concept that's been proposed. We recognize in the act continuously — whether we're talking about teachers or students — that there is a need for a fairly sophisticated system to determine if children are receiving an adequate education and to see if teachers are indeed performing their job well. Yet in this section, the words are very brief in terms of what kind of system is in place both to protect the child and conversely to protect a parent. For example, I don't see that there is an appeal. Yet under the previous sections we've debated, there is a provision for students and parents to appeal decisions.

I think these are quite legitimate questions. It appears that the back bench is restive and perhaps would like to go home, but they won't be here much longer. We sit till 10 o'clock. I think these are reasonable questions that relate directly to section 14, and I'm simply trying to canvass them with the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member is working from the mind-set that the only thing that is good to learn is what someone has decided to teach. If you work on it from that precept, then of course you have to monitor to see if they are mastering what you decide is important.

Let's assume that what we say may be important is what someone else may want to learn, even if it doesn't coincide with my view of what is good for them. If they develop skills, if they are social and if they are not physically, mentally or academically neglected, that should be our concern, not whether or not they are jumping through the same hoops or mastering the same facts in the same way as somebody else. We're trying to open that up in the public school system.

There's no reason why students should all do 40 exercises because 40 exercises exist on a page, and we see whether they get 38 of them right. I couldn't care less if they do 40. If they can do one and know exactly what they're doing, why can't they go on to the next seven pages in the book and do what they're capable of doing, rather than our saying: "There are 40 questions on the page, and the only way we can measure you is if you go through the 40 questions"? Again, why don't we assume that we shouldn't monitor parents' concern about their kids? We should only concern ourselves when that turns into neglect that harms the child; otherwise, maybe we should butt out.

MR. MILLER: The minister never responded to a single one of my questions; instead he went off on some tirade. I assume as the Minister of Education you would think it would be important for people in our society to be able to read, write or do some basic mathematics — maybe not extended or sophisticated mathematics, but basic — and primarily the ability to read, to comprehend and to express themselves. I assume the minister would think that's important. I am asking how you are going to monitor under this section, so that we can be assured that those students are given that basic level of education.

I didn't require the minister to go off on some ridiculous tirade. Conversely, if you are going to monitor, and if you are then going to make decisions as to whether or not a student is receiving an adequate level, what protection is afforded in there for parents who might disagree with decisions made by the superintendent? How do they appeal it?

You're the one who's afraid of Big Brother you referred to a little while ago. Where does the parent go when faced with a superintendent who says: "You're not doing a good enough job. You can't now home-educate your student"? The kind of answer you gave to the last question does nobody any good, so I would appreciate the minister getting back to the topic.

MS. MARZARI: I don't believe the section should be allowed to pass, Mr. Chairman. Section 14 basically reads that a person who believes that a home school child who is required to be registered is not registered, or a child who is being educated in accordance with home-school rules is not receiving an educational program may report that belief to the superintendent of schools for the district in which that child resides. Then the superintendent can take action as required by orders of the minister. The person who informed is not going to be punished or have any malicious action taken against him, unless he has taken malicious action in making the report.

Aside from the fact that the child is supposed to be registered in some school or another, this is the only way we have of knowing that those children exist. We are not sure how they do or where they are in their course of study. We are not sure what their educational program looks like. We have no idea at this point how much it is going to cost to ship out the books to ensure that the program is being administered at all. I don't see any way here that a superintendent is going to be able to supervise, monitor or be able to follow up on complaints that are made and determine whether or not they are malicious. As my colleague from Prince Rupert has commented, there is no appeal for a parent who has been informed upon. There is really no protection for the child who may or may not be receiving an educational program. As my colleague for New Westminster pointed out at

[ Page 8197 ]

the beginning of this debate, there is no real definition of what that education program should look like for a home-school child.

More important, the minister himself has talked about it being good for the child's advancement through the system that certain data be kept. In fact, when we raised this during the education estimates, we talked at some length about data elements which will be developed and collected in September 1990 in the student record system: data elements reflecting intellectual development, human and social development, career development, student demographic attendance, dropout follow-up data, number of days in attendance, destination if known, student participation in Passport to Education, work experience, other course information, etc. All this data is going to be kept on our students, the minister says, for their own good.

Now I happen to think that we should be challenging this, because the level and depth of assessment may be altogether too much. He just called it the "thumb of the state," keeping data on students, although a few weeks ago he said this was good for the students and good for the system None of these home-school children, nor the system, nor their parents, nor their teachers, nor their colleagues in life later on are going to have the benefits, if you want, of the monitoring and the supervision of the public system.

[9:30]

Later on I'm going to say that these benefits are a double-edged sword, and we have to be careful about them. But the fact is that these information systems are being developed now, and we should ensure that they really do serve both our research purposes for the system and for the students' purposes. But these home-school students are really three times removed. They're removed by being registered in a private school which isn't necessarily accountable to the public system. They can register in a public school, but they can register in any school here. Their only monitoring, the only catch basin if they fall between the stools.... If their safety net is a friendly neighbour or a person who reports to a superintendent and then the recourse is an order of the minister, I don't think we've thought it through. I don't think we've thought through this new system of home schooling I don't think we've thought through the recourse. I don't think we've thought through anything on these three clauses, and it concerns me and many people in the province.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the Socred back bench is pleading. I don't know what they're pleading about. Why don't they leave the chamber, or why don't they get up and ask some questions, which we never hear from them?

I go back to section 3, which requires that children must receive an education between certain ages. It's a requirement; it's the law of British Columbia. Now we move to section 14 dealing with home schooling, which I think purports to support that section 3 but allows a departure from the norm, if you like. In terms of the orders that may be made or the action that could be taken, is it conceivable that this section could lead to a child being apprehended from his or her home if in the minister's view there was a violation of that section?

The minister may be looking for more time. My question was quite simple. I'm canvassing the range of actions that could be undertaken under section 14. Is it conceivable that under this section, presumably in consultation with, or jointly with, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, a child could be removed from his or her home because in effect section 3 would have been violated?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

MR. MILLER: On 14(2), what are the range of orders that the minister has thought of or that have been discussed with ministerial staff that would be open to the minister or options of the minister in taking action under section 14? Perhaps the minister would elaborate in terms of what kind of situations — and there must have been some discussion of this — the staff envisaged could take place and what kind of counteractions by the ministry would be necessary to correct them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess, briefly, the type of orders would be those that are needed to deal with the situation minimally but effectively, and the type of order might be that in this case you shall do this, two days later you shall do that and three days later you shall do that, and that is how you proceed with the implementation of this checking. I'm a little reluctant to put that in the act. But I'm reluctant for another reason: that perhaps there should be some more flexibility. The intent is not, as some of your members say, to put a rigid set of rules by my interpretation. Maybe there are some other people that would say: "Well, this would be the best way to accomplish this." There are always the laws of this land, and other sections provide for absolute neglect.

You keep going back to sections, but if you go back to the very definition of "educational program," it's a set of organized learning activities which are in the best interests of the students — I'm paraphrasing here — as determined by the parent in the case of this section. Of course I'm interested in the student being able to read, and I think we have covered that. They shall provide them with an educational program, an educational program being a set of organized activities that will enable the student to function effectively in a healthy society and in a sustainable economy. I have to keep going around in circles for that member. It's all there without having spelled out exactly what I am going to do three and a half years and two days from today when a situation arises.

I don't anticipate too many situations arising. Home-schoolers are generally very committed to educating their students. What we've provided for in here is that if they ain't doing it, then we should have some way to get at 'em.

[ Page 8198 ]

MR. MILLER: I am glad you agree that students should read, and I can only say in response to the first part of your answer that even the ability to read would not allow them to understand what you said, because I don't think you really said anything.

I did accomplish one thing in terms of a concrete answer, and it was a question that was legitimately asked by people in my constituency. Their fear was that under this section, Big Brother — the school district or the minister — could come in and say: "You're not doing things to our liking." If you are saying here and now that that is not going to happen, then I suppose in view of the disinterest of members opposite and the need to proceed on the bill, I will let it go at that.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to move the amendment which has been brought to the attention of the Chair. It's in section 15, and it is needed to make the language consistent between sections. It says: "To strike out the words 'or discipline' and substitute the words 'suspend or otherwise discipline."' I so move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, I will just read the amendment as presented so that the wording is precise. It says: "Section 15 in the proposed subsection (3) by striking out 'or discipline' and substituting 'suspend or otherwise discipline."'

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

MS. A. HAGEN: I hope that we can move along through at least a good part of this section which has to do with school personnel. It's a very important section. I doubt that we will, in fact, be able to conclude it tonight, although I certainly would have liked to deal with it as a section. So let's begin and deal with 15, which deals with two basic premises.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister is shouting from his far comer over there, and I can't hear him, but if he keeps quiet, I can move on.

Is there anything in 15(l), which speaks about the board employing and being responsible "for the management of those persons that the board considers necessary for the conduct of its operation," to limit who the board may employ under this clause?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Until we come to the next section, for which you are setting the trap, I think the answer is no.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am glad the minister thinks he reads my mind. I'd prefer a straightforward answer

He is the person responsible for this act. I gather that the answer is no; that there are no limitations on what the board may do. I take that as an answer without an editorial comment.

Let's move on to the other parts of this section which deal with the right and responsibility of the board to dismiss, suspend or otherwise discipline — to pick up on the amendment that the minister just presented.

The first part talks about "just and reasonable cause," and then raises a couple of exceptions. I want to clarify that. Under subsection (4), the board is given the authority to suspend when an employee "is charged with an offence that the board considers renders the employee unsuitable to perform those duties." Is that suspension one that would be in place until — if there is a charge — that charge has been disposed of in the courts? Is that the kind of suspension that we are talking about there? Or is there any other ameliorating circumstance that would mean that that suspension wouldn't continue? It could in fact be a suspension of very great duration. There isn't any kind of due process available except through the courts.

I just want to understand where the employee's rights are circumscribed. What are the employee's rights here? Does he have to wait until the court disposes of this before the suspension ends? Is that the intent of that clause?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The intent of the clause is to protect children, who are students in the school, should the need arise. I think it very clearly says that they may suspend an employee for an offence that the board considers renders the employee unsuitable to perform those duties.

I'd hate to get into specific examples, but it could be investigation for child abuse or for drunkenness on the job or something of that nature. On the rare occasions when that has to be dealt with, there is protection for the employees when they are suspended. Eventually they would have to establish that the suspension is for real reasons. Where an employee went berserk — for instance, if the school bus driver went berserk — they could suspend that person while they deal with it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister is dealing with section 5, which gives the authority to the superintendent to suspend when the welfare of students is threatened by the presence of an employee. There is a parallel in section 4 where it speaks of a person who is charged with an offence that the board renders the employee unsuitable to perform those duties.

I'm just trying to get a sense here of whether the process is a legal process. If that's what we're dealing with here and the employee's rights or the employee's opportunity to deal with this are circumscribed entirely by the fact that he or she has been charged, if the board considers that that charge is of a nature that the well-being of students is threatened, when is that suspension discharged? When does that suspen-

[ Page 8199 ]

sion end? When the charge comes to trial? When the charges are dropped? When that charge is disposed of? Is that really the vehicle we are dealing with here?

[9:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This is the right for a board, if they feel that something that the employee is doing can be a danger or detriment to the students, to suspend them right now. They have to justify it in terms of due process, which is usually spelled out in the agreement. They also would have to be able to justify that suspension while it is established, whether it is just cause or not. If it's just cause, then the board can go through the rest of the process for the completion of the suspension.

This is the type of emergency suspension that boards have to have while the due process and everything is working. They would have to be able to defend it. I don't know what the problem is unless the member wants to ignore all of the rest of the sections and say that this one provides something that doesn't say when the suspension ends. It ends when the board lifts the suspension by vote, since they obviously have to make a decision to oppose the suspension. It obviously doesn't say when they do that. It says "...when they render it unsuitable." If they find out they have reason to carry that on, they would do so. If they find out that they have no reason to carry it on, that's a precautionary measure. It could be an hour; I suppose it could be a day. I don't know how to predict these situations. I know the member wants me to put into legislation that it will be for so many hours. Maybe I'm being a bit sarcastic, but how can you predict all of these emergency situations? But you have to cover for them and provide for them.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister persists in dealing with an emergency situation, and I'm dealing with a situation connected with an employee being charged I presume being charged means that there's a legal charge, and that the charge is for a criminal offence This particular clause exempts — it might appear — the employee the right of any other due process. I think the minister is saying that due process is not suspended here as a result of this, that the employee may be suspended when charged with a criminal offence and when the board has cause to make that decision. I'm not quarrelling with the responsibility of the board to make that decision. I just want to know if this also suspends any due process for the employee, except through the criminal charge being dropped or prosecuted in the courts. Is the due process that an employee is entitled to under a collective agreement still in place in respect to clause 4?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have to put some faith in other legislation in definition of terms. An offence is generally spelled out in the Offence Act, when the person is charged with an offence. Generally that charge is not laid unless there is something there to substantiate the charge. So when a person is charged with an offence, that doesn't automatically mean the board would suspend a teacher or a bus driver from their duties. But if he's charged with an offence that the board considers harmful to the students, then I think they should have the right to suspend before the trial happens two weeks down the road; that's what this says.

There is due process covered in agreements between unions, between associations and by common law; all of that process will assist the person. That's what it says if you look at "charged with an offence that the board considers renders the employee unsuitable to perform those duties." If the bus driver was charged with an offence of selling marijuana to the kids and the trial is scheduled for three weeks down the road, I would support the board's right to suspend that bus driver now, because they would have to assume that the charge is laid only after some substance and that it is an offence.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister seems to have great faith in the court system hearing that case in three weeks, and although the courts might be sitting around the clock and every night, as the Attorney-General has suggested they might be, that suspension could be in place for a very long time. I think what the minister is saying is that if a person is charged, then there are implications for that person in respect to his employment, and there will not be other due process until that particular case either is dispatched by being dropped or is heard in the courts, regardless of how long that is.

I just want to understand that that's the intent of the clause. I am not arguing the merits at this stage of the game; I want to understand the intent.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member should know by now that we go by what the clause says, not by what I would like it to intend. You keep asking me what my intent is. The intent is as it is written in the act. I try to explain the rationale for why it's in there and all of that, but don't ask me what the intent is other that what it says.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question to the minister: if this particular clause guides the board's action and a person is charged, tried and found not guilty, is the recourse through the collective agreement in respect to that employee? The minister nods his head. Thank you.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has an amendment, which has been circulated.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move that subsection(1) in the proposed section 16 be amended (a) by striking out "or disciplines" and substituting "suspends or

[ Page 8200 ]

otherwise disciplines" and (b) by striking out "dismissal" and substituting "dismissal/ suspension."

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm just watching the clock and recognizing that we are not going to get through to 21 tonight.

Section 17 deals with the teacher's responsibilities. Specifically, in the second part, it notes that the teacher will perform responsibilities as set out in the regulations. I know we're not debating the regulations, but there are draft regulations, and you can't really look at this clause without having some idea of what the minister intends to take place.

I want to ask the minister why, in this particular clause, there are numerous suggestions that the duties include responsibilities required or assigned by the minister rather than just directly by the board. Even if there are orders coming from the minister, why would there be duties that the minister would give to teachers rather than them coming through their employer, the board? There are a number of clauses in the proposed duties which suggest that the minister again will have direct access to teachers rather than boards directing their employees. I want to understand why the minister is getting involved with directing employees in the school districts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to determine, Mr. Chairman: are we on section 17 and have I lost my ability this late at night to read it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, section 17, Minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: Duties as set out in the regulations. I'm asking the minister, where those regulations specify that teachers will be assigned duties by the minister, if he can explain why he is assigning those duties directly to teachers rather than through the boards who are their employers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm still at a loss as to what we're discussing here. Duties assigned by the minister? I don't see that anywhere, and I know that a draft copy of the regulations has been circulated to EPAC and has been provided to the member. I don't have them in front of me; they're still under discussion. But I don't even recall in the regulations where it says that duties will be assigned by the minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps I could just very briefly enlighten the minister about the regulations that are under discussion. The duties of the teacher include: providing teaching and educational services, etc., as required or assigned by the board or the minister; evaluating students' intellectual development, as required by the minister or the superintendent of schools; providing information in respect to a student in his or her chart, as required by the minister, board or a parent, in the case of a home-school student.

The question is: why should the minister be directly involved with the requirements of teachers who are employees of the board? We've been talking about the orders of the minister. We've been talking about the ministerial responsibilities that the act and the regulations appear to have him taking unto himself; and in the proposed draft regulations, which clearly inform the clause that we're looking at, the duties set out in the regulations, these are three occasions where the minister appears to be overriding or superseding the responsibility of the board.

I don't have a problem with the minister conveying to the board what his orders are, but I do have a problem with the minister conveying to the teachers what his orders are. We've got to have some order in all of this, and the school board, as we noted in the earlier clause under school personnel, may employ and is responsible for the management of those persons the board considers necessary for the conduct of its operations. We can't have two supervisors, we can't have two directors in all of this. Why is the minister involved with that kind of direction of employees of school boards in the districts of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I believe those draft regulations are the ones that have been in place for some time, and so I don't know of any changes. I guess one of the reasons that there has to be the power of regulations is that once a curriculum is decided, once a direction is decided, once a reporting period or a reporting format is decided, once some of those things are decided, I don't think either a board or a teacher should be entitled to thumb their nose at the whole system and say: "I will have no part of this system in which I'm employed." So that's why that is there. In most cases it wouldn't need to be applied.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister wants to have it any number of ways. All we are trying to do with this is have some sense of how the system is going to work in a co-managed system. The co-managed system has the minister and school boards involved with setting up the schools and the way in which they are going to be managed within the province.

This kind of language — if it's been in the act and the regulations, it's not something we have had an opportunity to take a look at — simply confuses the line of authority, if you like, or the line of direction that makes it clear for people to whom they are accountable, with whom they are working, and how they are developing those programs.

Just because it amuses me that this regulation is here, I will take the opportunity to ask the minister about it. The duties of every teacher include ensuring that all students understand and comply with the codes of conduct governing their behaviour, etc. Could the minister please tell us how, through regulation, he expects teachers to ensure that students do that? Are they accountable to ensure, or is

[ Page 8201 ]

there not a better word that we could use in that regard?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose there may always be another word that can be used, but if the code of conduct in the school says that students shall not walk on the ceiling with muddy feet, then it would be the obligation of the teacher in the classroom to see that the children do not walk on the ceiling with muddy feet.

[10:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: If that's what the minister calls a code of conduct, perhaps the silly season has arrived as the night has progressed.

The duties of the teachers are very extensively described in the draft regulations, and there appears in those draft regulations to be possibly some intent to override collective agreements. The regulations state that no agreement between a board and the teachers may contain provisions that a sufficient number of teachers is not available to the board at all reasonable times to offer a complete educational program to all students enrolled in schools, including activities that promote students' intellectual, human and social development and so on.

Does the minister in that kind of regulation consider that extracurricular activities are a part of what will be required by the teachers to do at all reasonable times regardless of what hour of the day or night?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting that the member counters her own arguments in saying: "Does the minister consider those reasonable hours at any time of the day or night?" How ridiculous can you get? I guess you're assuming that you're a reasonable person and that the minister is in no way, shape or form reasonable.

These are the aspects of total child development, and I think it's important that teachers get involved in that. It does not require them to do it at certain hours or as extracurricular or anything; it doesn't say that. You create your own dragons, and then you go out to slay me over it.

Surely that member is not going to try to convince me that in the education of children only the academic shall be a consideration and nothing else matters, because I don't think any responsible, professional teacher can separate and say there is no connection between anything else. So when we specify that it should include these other aspects, we don't say, "and it has to be done at night," as that member tries to indicate. That's not said. There are agreements in place that specify when it can be done and when teachers can be asked to perform their duties.

We're not trying to subvert those agreements that are in place; we're simply saying that the duties of a teacher shall include the total child development. I think that's important, and I think most people and most teachers would heartily support that.

MS. A. HAGEN: With the indulgence of the House, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be good, although we are at the hour of adjournment, to take just another few minutes to finish this section.

I think the minister is perhaps begging his own argument as well. We are talking about extracurricular activities, which in most of the agreements that boards and teachers have developed over this past year have the parties recognize that these activities are volunteer activities. Certainly we all agree that those activities are very important to the well-being of children. But I remember that our House Leader, in conclusion of second reading debate last night, talked about the fact that he had willingly and voluntarily been involved through all of his teaching career with those activities. In his case it was probably music. It's sports, club work, any range of activities. We all know that those activities take place across a wide period of time in the school day. Teachers go in early and do some extra band practice; they work late at games.

What I'm asking is whether there is some intent, in defining the duties of teachers, to require that those extracurricular activities are indeed a part of the normal activities of teachers and that they are required, not as volunteers but as a part of their teaching duties, to participate in those programs. I want to be very clear about what the minister's intent is in respect to that particular regulation, which says: "No agreement can contain provisions such that a sufficient number of teachers is not available to the board at all reasonable times to offer a complete educational program." That says to me that we are talking about extracurricular activities if we're really looking at all teachers do as volunteers to contribute to the rounded experience of children in schools.

In addition to all of their normal teaching duties, most teachers give above and beyond. Most teachers do that with the recognition by board and teachers that those are volunteer activities; that a teacher does it willingly; that it is not a requirement but something that teachers, when they enter and continue in the profession, decide of their own volition to do. Is there anything in this particular regulation defining the duties of teachers that changes that situation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, there isn't. It would seem that we're going one by one through the regulations, which are still to be discussed by EPAC. There's nothing in these regulations that suggests that when these activities must take place after school or at certain times when teachers have free noon hours, they don't have to do it. I think that member would agree that neither am I going to say that no teacher is allowed to do it if they want to work with students. That's voluntary; these are voluntary activities, after the 25 required hours in a week — I said required hours of instruction — or less now by many agreements.

Am I to assume that in that member's opinion or for her purposes you cannot deal with intellectual during school hours? That you cannot deal with human elements during school hours — that it's

[ Page 8202 ]

limited strictly to intellectual? That you cannot deal with social development during school hours? That you cannot deal with career development during the required working hours? Why does that member automatically jump to the conclusion, if we say you've got to consider the rest of the student when you are teaching his mind, that it's a Machiavellian plot to extend the hours? That's what you are Implying here. You are saying that if we put in that there's more to a child than the head in which you pour stuff, therefore there is a Machiavellian plot behind this to subvert every other agreement in every other understanding in the system.

I get sick and tired of your creating your own dragons and then attacking me for it.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has avoided apoplexy until the last moment. I want to ask him two very reasoned questions to conclude what has been quite a wide-ranging debate where we have covered a lot of turf.

Is there any difference between a complete educational program — it's the first time I have seen the word "complete" — and an educational program? And is there any means by which this does give the minister the right to limit what may be bargained between teachers and boards in respect to their hours of work and the responsibilities that they undertake?

Reassure me, Mr. Minister. Don't accuse me of Machiavellian plots.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: At the risk of defeating my own arguments that I should not consider my intents, in my view a good educational program is a complete educational program.

Section 17 approved.

MR. BLENCOE: I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 32

[10:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Since we're making such marvellous progress on the School Act and section by-section debate, I move that the committee sit from now, 10:15, till midnight.

MR. BLENCOE: A point of order. We have no disagreement with debating important legislation, but this Legislature had begun to run much better by discussion by both sides on arranging times for the Legislature to sit. And without any discussion with this side — myself or anybody else — the House Leader on the government side has decided to extend the legislative hours.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Has the member finished?

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Chairman. Whereas we realize that the government has the power by order to extend the hours, we are disappointed that they would not discuss this, that this legislation is going to continue to be debated after 10 o'clock and that we will have legislation by exhaustion, which is not in the interests of the people of British Columbia.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, I draw Mr. Chairman's attention to standing order 8, which says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given by the House." It seems to me in listening to the numbers that only 11 or 12 members of the opposition were present for the vote, and I draw that to Mr. Chairman's attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member; neither was the one taken before it.

MR. SIHOTA: I wonder if the Chair can tell me whether this motion is debatable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is that the motion is debatable.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, it seems entirely appropriate, doesn't it, that when we're discussing something like the education act, what we see on the government's part is behaviour appropriate to the schoolyard bully. What we have are some cheap tricks to try and convince everybody that yes, indeed, the folks on that side are tougher than the folks on this side.

Interjections.

[ Page 8203 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members come to order, please. Take your seat please, thank you.

The first member for Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I take it that that reference to me is an invitation to carry on with my remarks. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this moment, and of course respond with alacrity, as I'm sure will be noted by members on the other side.

Interestingly enough, as I was saying a few moments ago, we are now finding ourselves in this rather awkward situation of wanting....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I'm not sure I want to be a designated speaker — to that member.

What we would like to do, of course, is to have a reasoned and sensible debate on the merits or demerits of the measure before us. Unfortunately what happens, due to the activities of the other side, is that the motives of the debate are called into question by the shenanigans and procedural antics that we witness over there. The lateness of the hour...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the motion is to adjourn or to continue to a certain time. The time is the operative and debatable item of debate. The member is straying from that. There's nothing so destructive as unfocused paranoia, and I'm afraid the opposition is suffering from that. But if the Chair could keep the members opposite in line with the motion as proposed by the government, then perhaps we could have some orderly debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's just pause for a moment to reflect on what has transpired in the last 15 minutes. It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that someone rose and made a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The motion was put, and the motion was called as being in the affirmative. At that point another member rose in his place and called for a division. A division was called. The motion that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again was defeated, which puts us right back into the committee stage. It would seem to me that what we should be doing at this point in time is debating the bill in committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, I'm just suggesting this is what should be done. It seems to me that in a House with a great deal of business to be done, it is a tremendous waste of time to debate whether the House should continue to sit until 12 o'clock or should proceed....

MR. BARNES: I normally don't like to interfere, but it seems as though you're making a speech. I don't think it's appropriate for the Chairman to lecture the House on a motion that is in order. The motion is whether or not we stay until 12 o'clock. That seems to be the motion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps to simply assist the Chair and the committee to fulfil its function, I suggest the hours that the committee sits can only be debated by the House, not by the committee. The motion that the committee rise was defeated by a vote in committee. Therefore I think you're absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman, that we have no choice but to continue debating section by section, and I believe we're on section 18.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled that the motion to debate whether the House should be extended to midnight is debatable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion certainly is debatable, and I wouldn't retract that; but the motion is not debatable, as I understand it, in committee. We have to go back in the House and the Speaker has to be in the chair before that motion can be debated.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, if you would be kind enough to give me the procedural words to move that motion, I would do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would draw attention to the time, hon. member, that would suffice to do the job.

MR. LOVICK: I'll leave it to the House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The sole intent, I am sure, of all members on this side who wish to continue to sit is to get on with the business of the House. It seems the opposition does not wish to do that. We will give them a chance to see if they would like to sit. To facilitate the Chair, we will move that the committee rise, report progress....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Tangled in your own web.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No. Since we seem to be in a conundrum, we will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then I will move my motion when we get back into the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 8204 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 67 rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Now, Mr. Speaker, until the hour of midnight.

Motion approved on the following division:

[10:30]

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 13

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I bring your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we've just had a vote. The motion passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 67.

SCHOOL ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 18.

MS. A. HAGEN: This section introduces a rather unique and bizarre clause into the act. In an act that is enabling and quite specific around a lot of the issues that we have been talking about, it names a very specific employee of the board. It states that a board may employ such persons. The title of the section is: "Teachers' Assistants." Unlike all of the other people who work in the school district besides teachers, administrative officers and all of those people, we are suddenly dealing with a specific classification of employee of the board.

This particular section is a very important section in the act for us to debate. I regret that we are debating it at a time when I am working on my fifteenth hour in this Legislature today. All that demonstrates is that there are a lot of people who put in a lot of hours in dealing with the issues that come before this House, who prefer to deal with them in a democratic and orderly way and don't like to have coercion as part of the discussion. I feel that there is some constraint and coercion in the debate on this particular issue. I go back to the original comments about democracy, participation and all those kinds of things, and I regret that we are dealing with this particular clause....

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The point of order really deals with relevancy. We're wandering all over the block here. It's absolutely clear that they owe BCTF a great deal. I've never heard more mindless claptrap and drivel.

Surely this bill on education is one of the most important pieces of legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would members take their seats, please. Now let's recognize the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. First of all, he's not saying anything that amounts to a point of order. The second point is this: the words "mindless claptrap" I find to be offensive and unparliamentary. I would ask that the member for Okanagan South — who should know better — should go out of his way to apologize to the House for the utilization of those words and withdraw. In my view the use of the words "mindless claptrap" flow to the comments made by my colleague for New Westminster, and I think it is highly offensive that he would go out of his way to describe in such a fashion the words that were being uttered by my colleague. I would ask that the member withdraw those comments with haste.

On a point of order again....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we haven't dealt with the one you just mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. Let's see him get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I would suggest that is an unfortunate term to use, particularly at this juncture in the debate, and I expect that the hon. member for Okanagan South would be prepared to withdraw.

MR. SERWA: I will withdraw that remark and substitute "mindless drivel."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to do the same thing with the last remark you made.

[ Page 8205 ]

MR. SERWA: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What we're here to do is debate Bill 67 in committee. So without any unnecessary chit-chat, I suggest we go back to section 18, and I'll recognize the member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, may I note that in all of the clauses we are debating tonight, we are representing a wide range of people in this province. In this particular debate that we are into at this time we're talking about people who work in the school system. I would hope that we're not going to have characterized — with the debate that we are now into at this late hour at 10:40 — any aspersions on who we are representing. We're representing the people of the province, we're representing the schools of the province and those people who work and attend.

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: The progress of the bill is now under our consideration, and I would like to proceed with some order in the House with section 18.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MS. A. HAGEN: As I noted — when we were in fact interrupted by some of what the Chairman called chit-chat — this particular clause of the act is one that is singular in its nature, in that unlike any other employee group that works within the school district, other than the generic group of people who are called teachers and some of the administrative people, we are naming a particular class of employee "teachers' assistants." We are setting up in the act a very specific clause which deals with such people and which in fact later on constrains collective bargaining in respect to these people. Therefore the clause stands out. Even though it's a very brief clause, it stands out for attention simply because it is an unusual and singular way to deal with an employee group within the act.

MR. SERWA: Who authored that stuff?

MS. A. HAGEN: The member asked who authored it. I'll have the member know that I author everything I say in this House and take responsibility for it as well. No one writes my speeches for me. I do my own research, and I'm proud of that. I will stand with all the members of this House who are a part of this debate with that kind of preparation. I'm glad to see that some of the teachers who have been working hard are still here to listen to the debate. That's an encouraging sign.

This clause, then, authorizes the board to employ persons other than teachers to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this act and the regulations.

The very first thing that we need to consider in looking at this clause is why the minister and the people who drafted this act felt it necessary to bring forward a clause such as this and put in the act a very specific employee group, especially since that group of people, it appears, will have duties and responsibilities very similar to those that all kinds of other employees have in the school district.

If I go into a school anywhere in the province, I expect to find all kinds of people assisting teachers in performing their duties and carrying out their responsibilities. They may be secretaries, custodians, interveners working with special needs children, class aides or library aides. There are any number of people who assist teachers in carrying out their duties.

The first question one would ask as one looks at this clause is: why do we have a group of people named teachers' assistants who are specified in some different way from all those other employees to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties?

Last night in second reading, Mr. Chairman, the minister made some reference to this clause. He noted that lots of people come into classrooms and are involved in that way. He mentioned that a business person might come into a classroom and give a lecture or provide some information; I think he mentioned that a nurse might come in. The nurse might be an employee of the Ministry of Health and might come in and provide some information for students, helping the teacher to provide a complete educational program, as the minister and I were discussing before we came to the hour of adjournment at five minutes after ten, about 40 minutes ago.

[10:45]

Those people are not what we would call assistants, because first of all, the business person who comes into the classroom is not an employee; he's a person who volunteers; he's a community person. It might be a senior who comes in to talk about the olden times, or it might be somebody who comes in from the local antipoverty group to talk a little bit about what it's like to try to manage in this province on the very limited income that many people have to manage on. It might be a person who has a particular skill in music or art; it might be somebody from the symphony or somebody from the opera. There are hundreds of different people who come into classrooms to assist teachers. But we're talking here about employees and a new group of employees who are called teachers' assistants with some vague comment that they are going to help teachers carry out their responsibilities in a different way than a school aide or an intervener or any of the other people who are in and out of classrooms working with teachers.

The minister made some comment about the real professional teacher being open to such people. I don't think any of us ever had any question about that. The minister seemed to presume that there might be some question. Perhaps then there is intrinsic in this clause some coercion: something that says, okay, if some teachers don't have some of those people in their classrooms, we're going to make sure that there is a clause that says that they must have

[ Page 8206 ]

such people. They can't have anything to say about that in their collective agreement as they might have along with other employees of the district, usually under CLIPE or another support group union — as they have a say about the people that they work with and the jobs that they do.

Now I don't want anyone to get me wrong about this: boards have the right to manage, teachers have a right to work through collective agreement processes to define their working conditions. It seems to me that all of that is wonderfully encompassed in the true spirit of this enabling act in 150) where — as the minister noted in my question on this clause — there are no restrictions on who a board may employ to carry out their duties in managing the system and conducting its operation. Obviously its operation is to provide educational programs for children: complete educational programs, whether they include extracurricular activities as a part of the formal program or the voluntary program — all of the things that teachers do in individualized learning, in group learning, in different kinds of class settings.

Now we could wonder if there is, to use the minister's words, a Machiavellian plot, a nefarious intent, in setting this particular group of employees aside as a specifically identified group, with all kinds of threads through the act that follow through. We could wonder about some of the problems the government anticipates in the future: problems having to do with shortages of teachers. We could wonder if the minister, the ministry and the government have decided at this time that they want to change the system without consultation, without the kind of due process that goes with collective agreements and without all of the things which in fact govern at the local level where the system functions the relationships and working conditions of teachers, other employees and the boards that employ them.

All of this is encompassed in the questions we might ask about these couple of lines which say that a board may employ persons other than teachers and that these persons shall work under the general supervision of a teacher or, interestingly enough, an administrative officer. In Bill 20 we separated those people from teachers: they ceased to be the principal teacher; they ceased to be part of the collegial group. We set them up as management. I happened to have spoken against that at that time. I still happen to believe very strongly in the principal as the principal teacher. I have an awful job dealing with this person as the AO, as that administrative person is now sometimes called affectionately or otherwise, depending on one's point of view. I haven't been happy with that separation, but it is there.

Clearly we are now talking about the administrative officer supervising a teaching assistant who may be providing assistance to teachers. So it's a convoluted thing. Is the administrative officer, as the manager, going to be telling this person what they do in the classroom of a teacher, when that teacher is fundamentally responsible for her classroom? There are just a lot of questions with this which I don't think really serve us very well in establishing a climate of trust, the development of programs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing orders, the hon. member's time is up.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I was listening intently to the member for New Westminster, and I would appreciate hearing more of her remarks. I know that she has much to say about the section, so at this point I will defer my lengthy comments.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for deferring. I know that there are a number of my colleagues who have paid considerable attention to this particular clause and are looking forward to an opportunity to speak to it. So I shall make my comments brief and give the minister opportunity for some response to the questions and concerns I have raised.

When I broke, I was speaking about that role of the administrative officer, who is indeed a teacher, a member of the College of Teachers, but who is not, in most instances, teaching in the schools. Certainly he or she is not named in this clause as a teacher, but in that person's role as the administrator of the school. So we have the possibility that a person who is a teaching assistant will in fact be working under the direction of somebody other than the teacher in respect to the offering of the services of this person whose job description is really not defined for us at all.

Perhaps it's the minister's intention to define it by a ministerial order, and perhaps that order will come down to the teacher directly rather than to the board; perhaps it's the minister's intention to define the work of these people by regulation. It's so inconsistent with the devolution of powers, and with the role of the school board to take responsibility for who it hires and for what those roles are, that it seems to be at odds with the whole thrust of this act, which is to open up the system and to leave those people who are responsible for providing the programs with that responsibility. But no, in this particular case, the minister wants to put some kind of stamp with a particular class of employee that he has wanted to name, distinct from all of those other employees who insist in providing the teacher with help in carrying out her responsibilities and duties. We therefore have a clause that has no place in this act. It really is a counterproductive clause in respect to the board's ability to manage, in respect to the relationships of employees within the districts, and in respect to the manner in which it sprang full blown into this act without any kind of rationale for it at all.

The minister may proclaim that what he wants to do is broaden the resources available to schools — a wonderful suggestion, one that we would embrace fully, especially if he funds it in a fair and equitable way so that the taxpayers of the school districts are not left carrying the can. In many areas of this act there is some broadened mandate, and we're still

[ Page 8207 ]

dealing with the old finance formula, the old funding formula. That hasn't changed.

So in this clause the minister has left the big question: why? Why are we moving to name a particular group of employees? Why are we saying that that particular group of employees can't be discussed around the bargaining table? There is nothing else that is so prescriptive. Why are we suggesting that there is some general supervision here of a teacher or an administrative officer, but with no definition of that person's responsibilities?

The clause raises dozens of questions. I've only addressed some of them. I'm sure there are many others that can be addressed. Many members of my caucus who are concerned about schools, who have children in the system, who want stability and trust in the system, who want an act that really follows through on the whole process and that's as consistent as possible with the recommendations of a royal commission in which we all have a stake.... Many of my colleagues will want to raise other questions in respect to this particular clause, and I'm sure the minister and members of the House who are stalwarts in staying with us through these late hours will look forward to the ongoing debate on our discussion in committee stage of this very important clause, which, I would note, I oppose.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe it took that member some 20 minutes or 25 minutes to say: "Why is this section here?" I guess she was able to work anything and everything — funding formula, finance, budget, everything else — into the speech.

Since there has been the indication that a number of other members are going to ask the same question over and over again, I would appreciate it very much if they would listen good the first time; then maybe we won't have to go through it repeatedly.

This act is an enabling act. This clause.... Maybe I'll just let the next member ask a question.

MR. CLARK: There are only half a dozen Social Credit members in here, and the minister doesn't seem to want to answer. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question is out of order, hon. member, because the House has already set the time to midnight.

MR. CLARK: The House sets the time every day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. The House has set the time by a motion, passed by the majority of the House, that we sit until midnight.

MR. CLARK: The motion every day in the House has been to sit until 10 o'clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it hasn't, but the daily sittings of the House are provided through standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to speak on section 18, because I have given some thought to what is contained in the provisions of section 18. The Minister of Education yesterday in the House was well aware of some of the issues that I canvassed during my discussions yesterday in Hansard with respect to this section.

In fact, as the minister may recall, I was speaking on this matter yesterday at around 6 o'clock, and I wanted to raise a number of matters that deal with section 18 and the ability of the board to employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this act and the regulations.

I am not too sure why this section is placed here in Bill 67. For example, the ability of school boards to engage teaching assistants has always been there. It is an ability which, it seems to me, is vested in a section that we have already approved — namely section 15. Just for the minister's edification, let me just read into the record what the appropriate provisions of section 15 are, and I quote: "The board may employ...."

If the member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) woke up over there, Mr. Chairman, he might understand why I am bringing to the Chairman's attention the obvious conflict between the provisions of section 15 and section 18.

[11:00]

MR. MILLER: How many members of the government side are here? Six?

MR. SIHOTA: It looks like all those members of the government who wanted to sit here and engage in this debate have fled the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's your leader?

MR. SIHOTA: He's in your riding getting votes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are debating section 18 of Bill 67.

MR. SIHOTA: I was happy to do this in the quiet of the House tonight, but the Premier started to utter some words. My suggestion is that he stay quiet before he says something that's going to upset Mr. Lampert and Mr. Sopow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 18, please, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: I notice that there are only nine members of the government here. It's frustrating to give this speech on section 18 when the Minister of Education has chosen to flee the House and take off somewhere else. In fact, it seems to me, when we are dealing with an issue as pivotal as teachers' assistants and the role of teachers' assistants in the classroom, that the Minister of Education would want to be here to defend those provisions. One has no choice, of course, but to spend some time talking about the

[ Page 8208 ]

section and await the return of the Minister of Education to deal with the matter of teachers' assistants.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I find no solace in the fact that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) says he is prepared to take notes for the minister. He, of course, is not the Minister of Education, and I'm not sure he's in a position to give advice as to the role of teachers' assistants and the positions and principles and philosophy behind this section.

As I was saying, as I look around and see the numbers dwindle on the other side as well, there are some inherent conflicts between what is embodied in section 18 and section 15 of the legislation, and I think the House deserves an opinion from the government of why a specific section — namely, section 18 — is required in light of the provisions contained within section 15 of the act. It's interesting again, Mr. Chairman, with the absence of the Minister of Education, that we're not able to get an answer from the government on this point.

Let me highlight why we've got a conflict inherent between section 18 and section 15 and why the government should provide an explanation of why this section is needed.

Section 15 deals with the engagement of employees. One must remember that employees of schools, school districts and school boards include teachers' assistants. Specific powers are contained in the legislation to engage the services of employees. In this instance there is a provision designed to engage teachers' assistants. I note in my review of the legislation that there are no other provisions in the act which give special powers to hire teachers, no special provisions in this section akin to section 18 which give you the power to hire janitors and no special power in this legislation saying that you need a section to hire secretarial staff.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The NDP always wants more power.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that the NDP wants more power. What he should do is walk over to the Premier and tell him to call an election, and we'll have the power that we desire.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's your leader?

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, the Premier's at it again, wondering where our leader is. He's going round the province campaigning.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Just to complete that thought: he's out there campaigning to increase the number from 53 percent to 57 percent in the next poll.

AN HON. MEMBER: At the people's expense.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the $7 million jet that the government bought was also at the taxpayers' expense, and it takes the Premier around the province. Do I hear the Premier complain about the $7 million spent...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 18, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. It seems to me that we have strayed an awfully long way from Bill 67 and section 18.1 suggest to the House that the reason we're sitting at this late hour is because of the lack of progress that we're making on this bill. If we continue to make this kind of progress, we might have to make another motion at midnight that we stay a little longer, and then we might get down to some serious debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was not a point of order, hon. member. Would you please continue debating section 18.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, on that intimidation of the House and an attempt to intimidate the opposition, which that feeble minister should know better is not going to get him anywhere....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It won't get you anywhere either.

MR. SIHOTA: That's a rather weak-kneed response from the gutter, if you ask me.

I was talking about teachers' assistants before the Premier chided me to talk about the matter of the Challenger jet, but I see now that the Premier is settled and the Attorney is there next to him to tell him not to utter such things.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, the member still has not come back to the debate of the section before us. Would you please bring him to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to both sides of the House that if the interjections coming from both sides were silenced, we could get on with section 18. The member will speak to section 18 of Bill 67.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sometimes find it difficult not to succumb to those taunts from the other side of the House; it's just too great to resist from time to time. I agree with you: if they keep quiet over there and listen to the important things that I'm saying about section 18, they would recognize the wisdom in my comments.

Interjection.

[ Page 8209 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr. House Leader. If the House Leader has something important to say, he can....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You have the floor; debate the bill.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm debating the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you deal through the Chair, please. Section 18.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the government House Leader is having some difficulty controlling his emotions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The bill, the bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Like a broken record-player. Maybe he's tired.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Now it's going to be four in the morning. Well, that's fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six in the morning.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, six in the morning.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Like a child — muttering away like a child.

Teachers' assistants is what we're talking about. I was saying before the interruption, which was uncalled for, that this is an interesting section because it gives specific powers to engage the services of teaching assistants. One must ask why we require a particular.... If the minister thinks he's a higher authority, then he should stand up and provide us with an answer instead of heckling.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You wouldn't listen when I tried.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says I wouldn't listen. I was listening with great interest to the minister. I'd be happy to yield the floor.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister should be mindful of the school rules section here, section 6 on the duties of students, and the comments he made at that time.

Section 18 deals with teachers' assistants. I'm trying to understand why the government felt compelled to bring forward a section that deals specifically with the hiring of teachers' assistants. If one canvasses the balance of the legislation, it becomes evident that there was no need for the government to introduce specific sections to hire other people who are employed in the schools of the province. Let me give you some examples, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the minister of state for Vancouver and the rest of the world.

There is no section that says you need a power in here to hire janitors. So why do we have a section that says you need power to hire teaching assistants? There's no section in the act that says you need specific power to hire secretarial staff. Secretarial staff are critical to the operation of schools.

I see my time is going fast. I want to thank the minister from Burnaby for bringing that matter to my attention.

There is no special section that says you need power to hire someone to come in and fix the school furnace.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, he is being repetitious and not relevant to the section. I consider it an insult to the intelligence of the people in this Legislature and an absolute insult to the people of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the member who just spoke is constantly rising on fatuous points of order. This scurrilous behaviour is absolutely inappropriate in this House, and I would call on you to call him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would like you to withdraw that last statement. "Scurrilous behaviour" is not acceptable, not parliamentary language.

MR. CASHORE: I withdraw "scurrilous."

MR. SIHOTA: I want to rise on that point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is settled, hon. member. We're back to section 18.

MR. SIHOTA: No. The point of order dealt with whether or not I was insulting the House by making this comment, not with whether or not the member should withdraw his statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you please not argue with the Chair. We are dealing with section 18, and the member's time has expired.

MR. CLARK: We have been listening to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. He has been interrupted so many times he hasn't got to section 18 yet, so he will need more time.

[11:15]

Before I yield the floor to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, or to the minister, I might just make a couple of comments, because this section is quite interesting when you read it in conjunction with the previous section. The minister says it is not a nefarious clause; there's nothing bad in it; we're being paranoid. It's this "don't worry, be happy" attitude that we see on the government side. It's the Bobby McFerrin school of politics that we hear always on the other side: "Trust us. We don't mean

[ Page 8210 ]

anything by it. We don't mean anything by section 18, just because there's no section for clerical staff, no section for janitorial staff and no section for any other subject." Just because section 18 deals with teachers' assistants, we should just say: "That's just a coincidence." The minister said: "It doesn't mean anything. We just put it in there, and it really doesn't give any more powers." That's odd, Mr. Chairman.

When you read section 17, which details teacher's responsibilities.... Section 18 says that a board may employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties. Responsibilities are defined in the act as designing, supervising, assessing educational programs and providing instruction to individual students. Clearly we have an act which sets up professional standards. We now have a College of Teachers with all kinds of professional qualifications. There has been all kinds of discussion about the quality of our teachers.

Then we have a specific section which undermines the very professionalism which the minister purports to support. It undermines the College of Teachers. It undermines the other sections of the bill which try to elevate the teaching profession and its status by giving a specific section which allows unqualified people — people who are not certified teachers, who are not qualified under the college act, who may or may not have any training — to design or to assist with designing, supervising and assessing educational programs.

Clearly it's an open invitation to school boards — and maybe the minister or others who want to undermine the teaching profession — to allow unqualified people to deal with the question of assessment and designing of educational programs. That's what section 18 is designed to do.

Oh, the minister has arrived. He's returned to the House, Mr. Chairman. I'm very glad.

I'll have more to say. I just wanted to interject briefly on section 18. I will have more to say, but I didn't want to interrupt the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who is just beginning his remarks on section 18. At this time, I'll defer to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's relevant remarks are appreciated.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of both explanations — from my colleague the good member from Vancouver East and from me — is the minister now prepared to answer the question as to why you need a specific section here to hire certain people, when you've got the general section that's employed in section 15? Is the minister prepared to give us that answer?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was prepared to answer the question before, but nobody was prepared to listen. So I had to assume that the main objective was to get their speeches on the record, and I didn't see that I should go through the same thing a dozen times.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

This section is very specific. This act is an enabling act. It is not at odds with the direction suggested by the Sullivan report, which was to try to focus on a legacy for learners, to do some innovative things to keep students at school and to try to make programs more relevant for them according to their interests — not according to the interests of others who decide what is good for them. So this section is essential to enable that sort of thing to happen.

It is specific, because it was necessary to legalize the employment of people to assist the teachers — those who might not immediately be understood to come under section 15. Under section 15 the board has the right to hire teachers, secretaries, janitors, teacher aides and all of those other things. In this section it was specific to be able to employ — not on a full-time basis, but as required — people who could assist teachers. I keep emphasizing "to assist teachers" in providing an educational program for the benefit of students.

It does not interfere with the bargaining process, unless for some reason the bargaining process would determine that no one may speak to a class because that could be construed as teaching. It is essential in order to accomplish the new directions in education, in order to have these people to assist teachers in the performance of their duties and to ensure that people in this type of employ would come under the general supervision of the classroom teacher. For someone to say that administrative officers are not teachers is wrong. There's another section in the act that says an administrative officer cannot be employed as an administrative officer unless that person is a teacher. It is also true that many administrative officers teach a good part of the time, so they could be supervising these people in the areas where they are teaching. The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) makes quite a point about administrative officers, and again refuses to read this section. In the definition section "administrative officer" is a generic term that describes principals, vice-principals and directors. To say that she finds it difficult to say "administrative officer," when there is no restriction on calling these people principals, vice-principals and directors....

Let me give you a few examples of the type of things that are necessary if in fact we are going to provide the legacy for learners that this act is designed to make happen.

We are trying to incorporate native languages into the schools. We don't have qualified, certified teachers who speak native languages, but we would like to provide that opportunity. So would it not be something worthwhile that under the supervision of a teacher, someone who spoke the native language could come in and actually teach the native language?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The debate has to be recorded by Hansard, and the debate is sup-

[ Page 8211 ]

posed to be conducted through the Chair. If the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and the minister wish to shout across the din that is roaring in this committee, nothing constructive will be accomplished. I would ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who has ample opportunity at almost every sitting of this committee to ask his questions, to do so when he's recognized by the Chair.

Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I had mentioned the example of people who can assist teachers to provide business education to students and people in the business community who could be a great help to those teachers and who would provide that assistance. What about scientists in the classroom? It may be possible for a scientist to come into the classroom, and if that scientist is explaining science a teacher could, in effect, be teaching, whereas an agreement could say that the person can assist the teacher but may not teach.

Nowhere does this provide for these people to replace teachers; they are to assist teachers. It may be a good thing for students to learn French and other languages. We are quite interested in students learning Japanese, and we have very few teachers who speak Japanese.

The board could ask a university student who is over here from Japan to come and assist under the direction and the supervision of the teacher — to provide some instruction in Japanese, not to replace the teacher. There are work-experience programs, career-preparation programs. It might well be to the benefit of students. Of course, I make no secret of it: that's my first and primary interest — the best interests of the students.

These people could assist those students in teaching them something about their work experience. There might be some specialized person from out of the school system who might come in and assist teachers. It has always been accepted that people such as psychiatrists, special counsellors, speech pathologists are there to assist teachers. These sometimes are employed by the Ministry of Health.

You may recall that the report also said that we've got to try to provide these services to students, so perhaps the board would like to employ someone who could go around from one class to another and assist that teacher with some of these learning activities for the students.

I could go on with many examples. It only takes a little bit of imagination for people to realize that these people can provide invaluable assistance.

As far as the dragon that's been created about this being to replace teachers, I have mentioned, but they haven't heard, that section 19 says: "...a board shall not employ a person as a teacher...unless that person is a member of the college and holds a certificate of qualification." So they cannot employ these people to replace teachers; they can only employ people to assist teachers.

Section 15 does not provide for that type of person to assist. In other words, they could say a teacher aide may come in but must not instruct students. How can you have somebody teaching a native language or the Japanese language or something about art or music to assist a teacher who is not capable of doing that themselves, and say they can be a teacher aide but they must not under any circumstances do anything that even smacks of teaching, which means providing a learning opportunity for the students and can be teaching. So yes, this section is specific. It says that boards shall be able to do this to assist teachers. Later in the legislation it provides that you can't write into a union agreement that boards are not allowed to get these people who will benefit the students in the system.

I think the section is necessary. I don't know how you can interpret from that, unless for a specific purpose, that it interferes with the bargaining rights of teachers unless the bargaining rights include the right to prevent students from benefiting from these other people in the name of somehow or other protecting some union rights. That's why, if boards have the right to do this, then we also have to ensure that no one has the right to take that away from the board, and the reason is that it is to serve students. I would also suggest that section 15 can't provide assurance to parents or students that persons hired under that section would, by necessity, have to work under the general supervision of a teacher. Section 18 ensures that.

[11:30]

1 hope that answers the questions the members have. And I would hope that perhaps they could get away from their paranoia and look at the potential that this section offers to assist students in the learning process. I think that as this moves ahead, students can benefit. They will stay in school longer. It will mean that the teachers will be there to supervise that educational program and that they can. As I've said before, I don't think there's any concern by professional teachers to go along with this philosophy: "I don't want anybody to help me do a better job with kids." I think most professional teachers would be very pleased to have people with expertise assist them in providing a better educational opportunity, a better learning opportunity, for their students.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, I've just noticed that the Premier is reading a newspaper. I think that there's an understanding in this House that you're not supposed to be doing that. I think you've ruled on that on several occasions, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be appropriate, in light of your earlier rulings.... The Premier I see is now folding up his paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the member's point of order; however, my observations were that the Premier was carrying the newspaper and not reading the newspaper.

[ Page 8212 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You asked the Chair to make a decision. The Chair has rendered a decision. A decision of the Chair is not subject to appeal.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have found this debate quite interesting. I've been in the House for most of the day listening to it and listening to our debate leader asking reasoned, responsible questions, seeking information from the minister. The actions that have transpired in this House in the last hour and a half have quite astounded me. Given the fact that this minister has referred to the Sullivan commission and to the work that has been done over the last year, I would like to ask the minister: who gave presentations to the Sullivan commission which specifically asked for this clause?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second reading would have been a wonderful time to discuss that. Occasionally to mention the clause in a long dissertation is not in order. We're dealing with a four-line section. I must ask you to deal with section 18 dealing with teachers' assistants during this particular portion of debate. Please continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will refer specifically, as I was doing, to clause 18. The clause says: "A board may employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out the responsibilities and duties under this act and the regulations. Persons employed under subsection (1) shall work under the general supervision of a teacher or administrative officer." I'm perplexed by this, and nothing the minister said in answer to previous questioners has alleviated my confusion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister to refrain from answering questions put by other members until such time as the minister is recognized. The minister may not answer questions while questions are being put by the members opposite. I ask the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm more than happy to relinquish the floor to the minister, if he has something to contribute. But I hope that we'd get a little more than what the minister just offered by commenting that there was nothing he could say that could possibly answer our concerns. In the past half hour to an hour the minister has left the House several times and has not listened to the questions, so I don't know how the minister could possibly hope to answer in any meaningful way.

At any rate, I am pleased that the minister is here now, and I'd like to ask the minister specifically who asked for this section.

HON. MR. VEITCH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. By this member's own admission, they have been debating what you said is a very few words in the section for over an hour. In my humble estimation, it's tedious and repetitious. There's a section that deals with this, and it's section 46. I don't intend to move this particular motion at the present time, but it does deal with tedious and repetitious situations. I would like you to ask this member to return to the section and introduce a new topic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me deal with this point of order prior to hearing the member. The Chair allows and has allowed a great deal of leniency. If the rules of the House on relevancy were strictly enforced, debate would have terminated on all government legislation by about April 15. Some of you may think in hindsight that that's a good idea. Nonetheless, the Chair is obliged to try to live within the terms the committee has accepted for itself.

I have listened to what the member has had to say on this particular subject, and I've called her to order one time. The rest of the time I have found her comments to be in order. So unless there are intervening points of order between now and the adjournment hour, I would ask the member to continue — unless she has finished speaking.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'd be more than prepared to sit down, as I said before, if the minister would get up and answer my question. The minister who intervened on a point of order pointed out that we have been trying to get an answer for some time. It has taken a full year's study by the people of this province to get this piece of legislation. We have only had it before us for a very short time, in the middle of July, if you please, in the middle of the night.

I would appreciate a straightforward answer from the minister on who asked for this, and then we can get on to understanding more fully what this particular section will do. Not only have I got constituents to answer to, Mr. Minister, but I am also a parent who has children in school. I want to be assured that my children will get the same quality of teaching and attention that has been afforded them by the dedicated teachers in this province in years gone by. When I was in school, we had people coming into the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. We're getting off the track again. I know it's getting close to that time, but if the Chair doesn't have some enforcement here, we'll be in trouble. We're not really in the scope of discussing what happened when you were in school. I'd ask the member to continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The point I was trying to make is that for a long time in the school system the teachers have had assistants and specialists come into the classroom. Indeed, in the past I have gone into the classroom and provided information and resources to different classes.

[ Page 8213 ]

I don't understand — and perhaps you can be a little clearer — why you feel it is necessary now. The minister has emphasized that this section is to enable the hiring, the paying of people to come into the classroom, and that no union contract can stop that process. I am curious, Mr. Minister, why you would put those two together. Why is that important to you? What does this particular section facilitate?

Can we envision a time in this province, or a school in this province, where you might have one teacher supervising three, four, maybe five assistants actually teaching and caring for the children? Is that a possibility? Are we looking at a future here in this province — a future that is brought about by the policies of your government — where we will experience severe teaching shortages and you will need these people?

Mr. Minister, you have not provided a thing that can alleviate these concerns of the people that participated in the Sullivan commission. You have not provided any information that will alleviate any of the concerns of parents who care very much about the quality of teaching that their children will receive.

I will sit down at this point and hope that the minister will find his feet. If not, I will continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought I had answered those questions, but they come around in different forms.

The member asked one question, and that is: who asked for this section?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's irrelevant.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose it can be considered irrelevant, but the commission report and the implementation of the commission report, in effect, asks for and requires this section.

If we are going to get serious about providing native language instruction, other language instruction and all of these opportunities for students, then we cannot rely forever on volunteers. I think it's unfair. Therefore, if we're going to, we must provide an opportunity for boards to be able to pay these people to actually come in and assist the teacher. In that sense, the new directions have asked for this and require it if we are to make it work.

I mentioned the union contract, and it's interesting how they twist. I mentioned that because it was thrown at me by a couple of members on that side that this must be some plot to interfere with the bargaining process. I suggest that it does not interfere with the bargaining process. The teacher contracts go on and the teachers are protected. The boards can't hire anybody but teachers to deliver an educational program they can only hire some expertise, some people who can contribute something to the learning opportunities of those students in an effective way under the supervision of the teachers. That's why I mentioned that, and that's why I mentioned that if this opportunity to students is to be provided, then in a contractual agreement the good intent should not be negated by the type of attitudes being expressed from that side of the House.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister still hasn't answered one of my questions. I had asked whether or not the minister could envision any school in this province that would have one teacher and two or three or maybe four...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold it. The minister, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I had missed that question initially. The answer to that question is absolutely no.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There's nothing in this particular section that would prohibit it, and I'd like the minister to clarify how that would be stopped from happening. The minister said that these assistants would not be full-time and would not be taking over the teaching responsibility. I see nothing to stop that either. Is there something written in regulations, perhaps, that parents can see some comfort in?

[11:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: would the members please read section 19, which would prohibit that? Not in the regulations; right here in the act.

MR. CASHORE: The concerns I have are mostly in the wording of the second part of section 18. One of the issues that really concerns me is the circumstances that presently exist that need to be changed in order to enable whatever this section seeks to enable.

I ask the question knowing that at present there is a very good system functioning, where assistants work in a wide variety of classrooms. They work under the supervision of classroom teachers and in most instances I believe, form a very good team, where the professional expertise and training of the teacher are the process of working most closely with the students. The teacher knows the students, is trained to work with them; they are that professional's class. The assistants then come in and work under his guidance and direction, and it's often a teamwork process in that situation.

So we come down to this one little word in the section: "shall work under the general supervision of a teacher" — which is the situation that presently obtains — "or an administrative officer," which opens the door to a whole new development in what takes place in classroom teaching.

It's being pointed out here that this is the thin edge of a wedge. It's potentially, over time, a very large step away from the professional teacher being the person who has that relationship based on his or her training and experience with that class and where there is very clear direction that the assistant works under that teacher. It's a situation that we see in a number of special classes, not only in the regular full classroom situation, but we see that situation in classes that deal with children with special needs. We

[ Page 8214 ]

see it in classes which would be referred to as behaviour classes where there may be eight or nine students — some of them might even be on Ritalin — who have very severe needs and require a highly qualified level of expertise in terms of the professional work done with those students by that teacher.

The work of the assistants in that situation is absolutely indispensable. Mr. Chairman, the thought that we might be moving into an era where assistants could be working in a classroom but not under the direction of the teacher of that classroom leaves the question: under what circumstances? Can we have some examples to indicate why the minister would want to move in this direction? It seems to me that part of the section strikes at the very integrity of the classroom teacher's relationship with his or her class and with the need to be responsible for the way in which activities function within that class.

I think this is raising a very serious issue, and it is a serious departure. The situation now is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The system that we presently have is functioning well. If I could come up with an analogy, it would be something like this. In a hospital situation, in the operating room the physician is responsible for the operation. There would be nurses and other people in other roles, but there is one person who is responsible, and that is the physician in that situation. In the school situation, the classroom teacher is the professional who is trained to work with those students. This minister has not managed to build a case that would in any way, shape or form justify opening the door to having assistants under the supervision of an administrator in the classroom.

HON. S.D. SMITH: On the assumption that the debate I'm hearing here tonight is in fact serious and intended to help inform people and is not sufficiently tedious when we're talking about section 18 that one would want to look to standing order 46, 1 want to direct to the minister the appreciation of the constituents of Kamloops, particularly in the North Thompson valley, for section 18. What section 18 does for people in School District 26 is very simple, and I hope the sincerity of the member who just took his place will be reflected in understanding what it is that this will do for these people and for students.

We have in that district a highly regarded and successful program in logging and forestry. It has been going on for a quite a while. What this section does, in my view — and I commend the minister for introducing it — is to protect students and parents against a situation where you might have unqualified teachers — as in fact I did in that school for most of my tenure there — because it provides in the definition section what it is that a teacher ought to be.

In addition to that, the program we have in that school for forestry and logging enables those teachers to bring in for that logging program, for instance, a professional forester from Slocan Forest Products or Weyerhaeuser's tree-farm areas to assist that teacher in the forestry program. As well, it allows someone who may be a chokerman to come in and assist in that part of the logging program.

We have a second program in that area, and in Kamloops as well, which deals with the veterinary sciences and which deals legitimately with issues that support our very important horse-breeding industry. This, I think, would also apply as well to people in Langley, and perhaps people in other constituencies. It may even be so here in Saanich or in Esquimalt.

What that section will do is protect us who have children in the public school system, by ensuring that teachers have to stand the test of qualification by the definition for a teacher. It will provide to the local board, who after all are not perverse people — they are individuals elected by the citizens through a very simple democratic process — the enabling power to supplement, particularly where we have those unique situation-oriented curricula, as we do in some of our districts.... It will enable them to employ people to assist the teachers to fulfil the education program that the board, school and parents have chosen.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That seems to me to be a highly desirable thing to achieve: to be able to protect the integrity of the teacher by definition in here, which is what we have done with this piece of legislation, and to be able to assist to ensure that that integrity is there, to be able to assist and to provide the flexibility for those programs. We can't do that, as I read this, under section 15, as is being suggested, because of the very specific definition that relates to teacher.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the minister for putting this section in the act, because it is something that will assist, especially in those areas like School District 26 where you simply do not have the resources. You frequently draw on resources from the community to assist the education program with people who do not carry teacher certificates. It is that simple. It is a desirable product of the system, and I think it is commendable that this act has recognized that and that this section does that — maintains that recognition while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the definition of teacher and the persons who very properly have achieved that through their qualifications.

I think this is a very good section. It's simple. It preserves that integrity. After all, it is one that is permissive to the local school board. I don't think we can lose sight of that. The school boards are not a bunch of loonies, as is being implied by some who think they are going to be perverse in the way to interpret this section. They clearly are not. If they are, then we have the same democratic process for them as the people have for us.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to respond briefly to the member for Maillardville — or wherever. He seems to suggest that principals are not teachers, are not professional. Every principal has to be a professional teacher before they could be put into a posi-

[ Page 8215 ]

tion of a principal or administrative officer. They are not the enemy of the teachers. They are not the enemy of the students, and they do teach a fair amount of the time. To say if a vice-principal teaches half-time and this assistance may be available to a teacher but must not be available to a vice-principal would be ludicrous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Spin wheels.

MS. MARZARI: I don't intend to spin wheels. I've been waiting to speak on this section for some time.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Please, I ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Tourism please withdraw it.

HON. MR. REID: I withdraw the remark.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to speak to section 18. I think section 18 is rather crucial for the whole bill.

I've heard the Attorney-General talk about section 18 basically being an enabling section that's going to assist parents to be assured that their children are getting correct education....

MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My attention has been drawn to the clock. Seeing as it's the time allotted, I will report to the Speaker. The question is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 midnight.