[ Page 8289 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ban the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors (Bill M220). Mr. Clark

Introduction and first reading –– 8289

Private Members' Statements

The AIDS epidemic. Mr. Perry –– 8289

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Destination tourism. Mr. Rabbitt –– 8291

Ms. Pullinger

Premium wine policy initiative. Mr. Serwa –– 8293

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Savage

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 46).

Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 8295

School Act (Bill 67). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8296

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Jones

Mr. Barnes

Third reading

Independent School Act (Bill 68). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8308

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to have visiting with us friends from Santa Barbara, California — they arrived aboard a cruise ship this morning — Mr. and Mrs. Jesse and Patricia Nimmocks, their son and daughter-in-law, Drs. Jimmy and Eileen Nimmocks, and Emily Ann Weimerskirch and Lou Lander. They are spending a day in Victoria before proceeding to Alaska, and I would ask the House to extend them a welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO BAN THE COMMERCIAL
USE OF LIE DETECTORS

Mr. Clark presented a bill intituled An Act to Ban the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors.

MR. CLARK: The primary purpose of this bill is to outlaw the use of lie detector tests by businesses in the evaluation of their employees and in the investigation of their conduct. In addition it prohibits the commercial use of these devices for any purpose unrelated to the commission of an offence with which a person has been charged. In other words, the routine use of lie detector tests by ICBC or any other agency is banned by this bill.

Tests like the polygraph are demeaning, intimidating and, most importantly, fundamentally inaccurate. Even the American Polygraph Association, the principal proponent of their use, claims an accuracy rate of only 90 percent. Many other experts believe they are only 65 percent to 75 percent accurate.

These tests are, in fact, used currently by businesses in British Columbia. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association informs me that they receive complaints every couple of months or so. Most employees take the test rather than lose their jobs. As a result of this economic pressure, these tests can never be called voluntary.

Mr. Speaker, the polygraph is a crude, unsophisticated machine, essentially unchanged since the 1930s — an age, in my view, of naive faith in the infallibility of science and technology. They have no place in the 1980s.

The use of lie-detector tests by employers is banned in Ontario; it is restricted in Great Britain, and banned in the United States. It is high time we banned them in British Columbia.

Bill M220 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.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE AIDS EPIDEMIC

MR. PERRY: The AIDS pandemic has now infected between five million and ten million people worldwide. It poses a challenge more devastating, more complex and more taxing of the human mind and spirit than any disease our society has faced this century.

British Columbia is not spared. With 591 cases of AIDS diagnosed through June 30, we have the highest incidence in Canada and exceed that of any country in Europe. Compounding this burden of suffering, the care of these people is estimated by the Royal Society of Canada to cost British Columbians about $50 million, while the indirect cost of their illness may total $300 million.

Presently the virus is spreading into the heterosexual population. In B.C. the number of females with frank AIDS has doubled from seven to 16 in the last three months; yet the diagnosis of AIDS is but the small apparent manifestation of the looming tragedy. By May 31, 3,063 British Columbians have tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Some are in our prisons, where at least 19 seropositive inmates have been identified by sporadic voluntary testing. Ominously, a recent survey of a Quebec medium-security women's prison discovered the surprisingly high prevalence of 6 percent.

Kids on our downtown streets are also infected, including 17 of 594 tested in Vancouver, most notably one 17-year-old and two 16-year-old girls. Prince Rupert recently has experienced an epidemic of at least 15 cases of hepatitis B among its 100 intravenous drug abusers. Where goes blood-born hepatitis, AIDS will co-exist or follow, as demonstrated by its explosive spread in Edinburgh, Milan and Bangkok, where HIV seroprevalence in injection drug users leapt from 1 percent to 43 percent in less than one year.

In addition to our 3,063 known carriers, some 2,000 to 4,000 more British Columbians, still untested and ignorant of their status, are thought to carry the AIDS virus. Barring miraculous scientific discoveries in the next few years, these 5,000 to 7,000 will sicken and may die, most of them decades before their natural life span would have dictated. These facts cry out for action. Yet here in this assembly we argue whether or not to protect our population through the only means available — prevention.

What is our record in this province? Let me briefly examine some of our strengths and our weaknesses, and then in my final three minutes I shall outline an integrated provincial strategy which could transform us into a world leader in the fight against AIDS.

First, consider our strengths. B.C. has the first and strongest community-based AIDS association in Canada — AIDS Vancouver — founded in 1983 at the outset of our epidemic. We benefit also from the Persons with AIDS Coalition, McLaren House Society, DAWN House Society and AIDS Vancouver

[ Page 8290 ]

Island. Along with smaller and lesser-known groups throughout the province, they have done an outstanding job, widely recognized in their communities, to educate, to modify high-risk behaviour and to support people incubating or afflicted with the disease.

Recently the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society, supported by Vancouver and its health department, pioneered an innovative project to exchange sterile for contaminated needles and to supply disinfectant and condoms to intravenous drug abusers, prostitutes and street people. This program has exceeded beyond its organizers' wildest dreams, enrolling 1,620 in its first three months and achieving a 70 percent exchange rate on thousands of sterile needles. It has distributed thousands of condoms to the population at highest risk. Conceived and organized at the community level, this program is fast becoming a model for Canada and the world. One day, perhaps, it will be recognized, even in this province, as exemplary.

Some other strengths. Our health care professionals have devoted themselves selflessly to the care of people with AIDS. St. Paul's Hospital, in particular, developed innovative care protocols and educational programs to help staff cope with an unprecedented challenge. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control provided early leadership and laboratory services. Our scientists have become world leaders in the epidemiology of HIV and are hard at work on basic and clinical aspects of the disease. Our Red Cross moved swiftly to prevent blood-product transmission of the virus, as soon as it was technically feasible.

Individual school boards, such as Qualicum and Coquitlam, have recognized that half of our high school students are sexually active and therefore at risk, whether we like it or not. By agreeing to install condom-vending machines in schools, they have shown the political courage to provide their students not only with education against AIDS but also the means for self-protection.

What, Mr. Speaker, can we identify as our weaknesses? Most serious is the vacuum of leadership from our Premier and our Minister of Health. Time and again they have discouraged sensible initiatives from the community, the health professions and even from the Ministry of Health.

Consider a few specifics. We have no program to survey HIV prevalence in prisons nor to prevent transmission in this setting. Highly regarded community groups and, latterly, the Vancouver needle exchange program are refused provincial funding, although the federal and municipal governments and private foundations recognize the value of their work. Chronic short-funding seriously impairs their ability to coordinate volunteer services to people with AIDS who desperately need the assistance they could help provide more efficiently and economically than can our hospitals. Street kids and injection drug users who seek rehabilitation currently have nowhere to go; there are no adequate treatment facilities. Home-care services are nowhere near adequate for the established need. Patients are still billed for 20 percent of the cost of zidovadine or AZT, an essential treatment for AIDS.

[10:15]

Research spending by the B.C. government is pathetically stingy. It amounts to less than 1 percent of recent AIDS research grants in Canada. Our government refuses to publish the recommendations of its Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS, as if the public had something to fear from the truth. Ultimately, we have seen government censorship of its own AIDS video, a censorship which I hope to break today by screening the banned AIDS video for members within these precincts.

Let me turn now, Mr. Speaker, to an outline for a comprehensive and integrated provincial strategy for AIDS. I can only mention briefly some key elements. Number one, an ongoing coordinated educational campaign.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I regret to inform you your time is up under the standing orders.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to thank the member for giving me his statement this morning, although I haven't had a chance to go over it; I just received it. But I appreciate even the time that I had.

We know that the AIDS epidemic, this fatal disease, has struck the world with a vengeance. A lot of the information we received this morning we know; we don't have to repeat it. It's fact and figures: we all know that. Everyone in the province is more or less familiar with that. But it is one thing to talk about what we know and give all kinds of theories; it's another thing to do something about it. This government, the Ministry of Health, and I as Minister of Health, have in fact initiated many programs and done many things in the area of AIDS prevention and education. That is my mandate, and I have taken it very seriously.

For example, Queen's University did a national study — I've mentioned this before, but I want to put it on the record again — and they found that British Columbia youth was the most educated, the most informed of any youth in Canada. These things don't happen by chance. It's not because we did nothing, as we hear from that side again and again: that British Columbians somehow know all about AIDS because they read the paper or go back east or to another province and get that information. It is because this ministry has in fact disseminated that information.

1 don't like to talk about what we do in a way that may sound boastful, and I haven't done so; I've given facts. I want you to know that last year I received a national award from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, a plaque that said: "In recognition of your outstanding leadership in the area of AIDS education." I would not have brought it up this morning if it hadn't been for the other side: negative, negative, negative, this government does nothing. Other people across Canada come out here and say: "You're doing a terrific job with AIDS education, and we want to recognize that."

[ Page 8291 ]

We have done many things in the area of AIDS, but not just in that area; it's other diseases also. We seem to, as of late in the House, zero in on one disease only and think that's the only thing the Ministry of Health has to deal with. We're also dealing with the diseases caused by the abuse of alcohol and the use of tobacco. For example, between 35,000 and 50,000 people a year die in Canada from the use of tobacco products. These are facts, but we zero in on one only. We have to take the total, all the diseases, and that is my responsibility, and I take this quite seriously. For him to say that this Premier or this minister or this government does nothing in the area of AIDS prevention or education is stupid.

If the opposition were really concerned about this whole area of AIDS education and this devastating fatal disease, they could assist — and we would take all the possible suggestions that they may have — rather than using this particular deadly disease as a political football to make some political headlines. I think that is really disgusting.

I haven't got time to go over all these things that we have done in the past, but, for example, the mailings that we did to the total province: every household got a mailing. How about the "AIDS in the Workplace," that we mailed to all the larger corporations and to anyone who desired that information? How about the video we had here some time ago, a well-balanced video that showed not only a narrow view; it showed the options.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that under standing orders his time is up.

HON. MR. DUECK: I was just getting wound up Thank you.

MR. PERRY: The record will show that I did not say the government has done nothing, but I think its attitude is shown disturbingly by the comments of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), who shouted out to us, "Sodomy forever; a new NDP theme song," in the midst of this debate.

Let me turn again to an outline of a comprehensive and integrated provincial strategy for AIDS. I can only mention briefly some key elements.

(1) We need an ongoing coordinated educational campaign. Although the government spent $4 million to implement family life education in schools, it has left school districts to continue the job alone. We must restrain government censorship and provide young people with straightforward, explicit and widespread continuing education. This must be accompanied by improved access to and acceptance of condoms by sexually active young people. Government should support local initiatives to install condom machines in high schools. These points are totally consistent with the "Canada Youth and AIDS Study" report to which the minister referred.

(2) We need funding for community groups. The provincial government should provide generous funding for community groups with solid track records in AIDS education and prevention and in service to the sick. Such expenditures are likely to more than pay for themselves in cases of AIDS prevented and in reduction of hospitalization.

(3) Funding for zidovadine and other drugs should be restored. We must prepare to distribute aerosolized pentan-Lidine, which appears to provide effective prophylaxis against PCP and reduces the length and frequency of hospital stays for people with AIDS.

(4) We need outreach programs for street youth and injection drug users. To prevent an explosive epidemic of AIDS in this population, we urgently — I repeat, urgently — require provincial funding for integrated service centres in cities like Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. They should provide needle exchange, bleach distribution, condoms, access to STD treatment, counselling and confidential HIV testing, detoxification and drug withdrawal programs, and social and educational support services.

(5) We need prevention in prisons. All persons incarcerated in B.C. should have access to AIDS information, voluntary HIV testing and counselling under absolute confidentiality, and to condoms and bleach for disinfection of contaminated needles. Needle exchange programs within prisons should be considered as warranted. We need programs for aboriginal people. The province has begun this initiative, and it should be pursued vigorously.

(7) We need more funding for research. The AIDS epidemic hit B.C. at a time when university funding had been drastically cut. This imposes extraordinary burdens on our scientists and university teachers. We need substantial new dedicated funding for faculty and research so that B.C.'s pool of researchers can expand to optimize our scientific response to AIDS.

(8) We need a UBC-St. Paul's Hospital centre of excellence. These two institutions have earned an international reputation for research and rare in AIDS. This has arisen through cooperation with community groups, and thanks to federal research funding. The province should recognize and foster this achievement by establishing and funding immediately a centre for excellence stressing a multidisciplinary approach.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

DESTINATION TOURISM

MR. RABBITT: I wish to rise today in a positive way and talk about British Columbia's fastest-growing industry: tourism. British Columbia has captured the imagination of tourists throughout the world. The natural beauty of this province is unequalled; it's our greatest asset. The shrinking globe, though, has created both competition and opportunities, and to take advantage of these opportunities, we're going to have to see some change.

Today much of our industry focuses only on the servicing of those who happen by. We've been in the travel or highway service industry rather than the tourism industry. There's a need for a concentrated

[ Page 8292 ]

effort to capitalize on both our natural assets and our history. Geographically we have many varying assets. We've got the prairie in the northeast, the Rockies, the Cascades, the Coast Mountains. We've got wet areas, dry areas, the inland plateaus. And we've got lakes, streams and rivers.

It's only in the last few years that we've made a concerted effort to sell British Columbia to the world tourist. That effort was focused and centred in 1986, when British Columbia hosted Expo. I think that has to be the greatest man-made tourist destination spot that British Columbia has gotten into, and I think it was recognized not only in British Columbia and Canada but worldwide that this was a worldwide success as a destination spot. We must duplicate this effort, but we must do so on a smaller scale and many times over on a more diverse scale. This will create a challenge to both government and industry. Government, wherever possible, must give the tourism industry the tools and the infrastructure to compete on a local, provincial, national and international level.

Let me talk about my favourite subject, Yale-Lillooet, the most diverse riding in British Columbia and probably one of the highest in potential when it comes to the tourism industry. To accomplish these goals and meet the challenge, we will need the cooperation of all levels of government. We will need a wise development of our natural assets and the proper use of our land base. We will have to adopt, enforce and work with a multiple land use philosophy. Management for both the short-term and the long-term are mandatory. We need to maintain a clean environment — not only maintain it, but make it even cleaner than what exists today.

Most of all, we have to use imagination. We need the support of the financial industry, and we need a commitment from the tourism industry as we've never seen it before. We've got the potential to make British Columbia a leader, not just in Canada, not just in North America, but throughout the world. We have to get out of the concession mentality and get into the Expo mentality. We've done it once; we can do it again.

I'm going to touch briefly on some of the places and projects in my riding that have been successful in tourist destination in a small way. Many of you are familiar with the Hells Gate air tram in the Fraser Canyon, probably the first and the largest destination point established. Literally millions of people have visited and gone right to the water's edge to look at that facility. It's a natural wonder which has been accessed by man, and people throughout the world have enjoyed that spot. Tyax lodge in the Gold Bridge area, like Manning Park, is an area where tourists from throughout the world enjoy both summer and winter visits.

We have whitewater rafting and steelhead fishing on the Thompson River. Whitewater rafting is not unique to British Columbia, but we have made that particular section of the river one of the safest simply by having safe operators operate under safe rules with good equipment. Our steelhead fishing is a natural resource which people worldwide come to partake in. The Hat Creek Ranch was identified as a particular area that the provincial government has partaken in, and now visitors from throughout the world come and enjoy a part of our history that dates back to the 1800s. It's been preserved so that people in the modern day can see how people lived in yesteryear.

[10:30]

I see my time is drawing to a close, so I will complete my comments in my rebuttal. I look forward now to the opposition's contribution.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to concur with the member in saying that tourism can be a very positive force in the economy in our province, and also that tourism is indeed the fastest-growing industry in British Columbia. A few years ago it was hardly recognized, but by the year 2000 tourism is expected to pass all other industries and become the number one industry in British Columbia. It's already the number one job creator.

The member also points out that tourism in our province is based largely on our natural beauty, our natural assets and our history, and he's quite correct in saying so. We do have a very diverse and interesting geography, and it's quite clear that preserving the cleanliness and the integrity of our environment is paramount for the tourism industry, There's no question about that. We need clean lakes, clean rivers, clean streams. We cannot go on polluting through government’s failure to adequately monitor industry in this province or to adequately understand what is being created — and as we saw in the estimates for the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. Mr. Huberts), failure to coordinate and integrate our other industries with the tourism industry. That's paramount.

The minister also suggested that we need integrated land use. He's quite right; we do. We've seen problems growing daily with the conflicts in land use in this province. But I find it interesting that tourism is almost not represented on most of the land use commissions. Tourism isn't included in decisions on forestry, nor on mining and so on. We do have to look after our environment; we have to keep it clean. Certainly everyone is concerned about it and I would add to that, and I hope the minister would press his own government to do the things they ought to be doing to clean up our environment.

Expo did indeed bring a lot of tourists to British Columbia. It was in many ways very successful. I'm not convinced that what we need is a lot of little Expos all around British Columbia, however. We do, as the minister says, need the tools and the infrastructure to compete, but we also need to have a coordinated ministry. We don't need to have a situation where people have to go to one ministry for culture and recreation, another for developing and another for marketing. We need coordination, and we need that solid infrastructure for an inherently fragmented industry to function well.

[ Page 8293 ]

The member mentioned the history of the area. The most successful tourism ventures occur in places like Chemainus, where they grow on their history; they develop their own history. It's not an imposition, and I don't object to them; I just don't think it should be our focus for something like Expo, where you take something totally different and separate and put it in a community. Rather it's better to develop what's there, to let the community develop its own history in its own geographic setting, with ministry support.

I agree with many things that the member has said. We definitely need that coordinated infrastructure and a clean environment. Above all we need some leadership, not the fragmented approach that we've seen. We certainly don't need things imposed; we need to work with what's there, including the nine tourism zones, and to allow communities and the existing base in tourism, which has been so successful, to become our second largest industry largely by itself. We need to support that and grow with it.

MR. RABBITT: I'm very pleased that the second member for Nanaimo agrees with most of the points I made this morning, because the approach we take as members here does reflect within the industry. But just to put things in perspective, I did a quick check on our performance in the three years from '72-75, and I think our track record speaks very well. During our three years, the commitment from government for a percentage of ministry expenditures was 40 percent greater than the opposition's during that time.

Jumping back to the high road for a minute, I would like to hit on some of the potential that we do have in my riding. The Kettle Valley rail line, which has been there since the turn of the century, is now being abandoned as far as commercial traffic goes There is a fantastic potential for the development of a summer rail line to take passengers from around the world, from Spences Bridge right through to Penticton.

Another potential is the re-establishment of the paddle-wheel on the Fraser River. As many of you may know, the paddle-wheel used to be a regular occurrence from Victoria right through to Spuzzum While I'm not suggesting that we reinvent the wheel, I'm suggesting that we look solidly at re-establishing routes along the Fraser where tourists can again ride the paddle-wheel.

We can also look at the history of my riding, which would recreate towns such as Granite City, which was the third-largest city west of Chicago at one time during the gold rush. We've got the mining city of Bralorne, still intact in many respects, and the little fur-trading community of Tulameen, which later became a mining community. We've got a lot of history that we, as British Columbians, can work on to help develop a tourist industry where people from around the world can come, visit, share and learn.

These are just to name a few, and since my time is almost concluded, I wish to thank the members for listening so intently and ask them to take the message back to their riding that tourism is our number one growing industry. It's the one, I think, that has the most potential in British Columbia at the present time.

PREMIUM WINE POLICY INITIATIVE

MR. SERWA: The Okanagan Valley is home to Premiers of the province for 30 years and is the site where the present Premier met his wife. It's a special place recognized as British Columbia's four-seasons playground. It is particularly charming and beautiful in the fall, which is harvest time in a bountiful land of plenty: all manner of fruits and vegetables picked, dug up, packed, pickled, preserved, put away for winter use. It's a beautiful time of fulfilment and satisfaction for people. In early morning one can walk in a silence you can almost hear. There are mixed smells and sights: faint wood smoke, overall a delicate spicy fragrance of ripening apples. And you will see in our vineyards clusters of blue and green grapes hanging heavily on the vine, grapes marbled with dew and sparkling like diamonds in the early morning sun. You were looking at the future.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: I see that the members of the opposition are really not interested in agriculture, in spite of what they say.

Twenty-two hundred acres of lower-quality grapes have been pulled out as a result of the federal-provincial grape and wine adjustment package. A thousand acres of high-quality grapes remain. They will form the nucleus of a new premium wine industry. Those are the grapes you will be looking at this fall.

I rise today to speak on the premium wine policy initiative brought forward by the British Columbia Grape Marketing Board. This issue is very important to my constituency of Okanagan South, and indeed most important to the entire Okanagan Valley. I'm very happy and proud to be associated with this dynamic, innovative initiative that I believe will have positive effects on the wine industry in British Columbia.

This new initiative originated in the wake of the GATT ruling and the possible effects of the free trade agreement. Overall, the greater threat was the GATT ruling, which forced British Columbia wines to compete with European wines, which have a high degree of subsidy in the European Community, thus an attractive sale price to consumers.

The wine industry in British Columbia was faced with the challenge of finding new methods to compete successfully at the international level and domestically in the face of international competition. Our wine industry recognizes that it must adapt and take proactive measures to meet this new challenge. As true entrepreneurs, they realize that a new direction must be pursued. The grape and wine industry in our province has found that premium grape and wine production is the direction to go to ensure the

[ Page 8294 ]

growth and prosperity of their industry in our province.

The cost structures and the ability of our industry to produce premium grapes and fine wines are very similar to, and in some cases superior to, other premium wine-producing regions in the world. The ability to recognize the need to adapt and change in the face of new challenges demonstrates our wine industry's history of entrepreneurship and determination.

Leadership in the premium wine direction started more than a decade ago. Grape-growers and commercial wineries led the way. When the estate wineries entered the market in 1981, the maximum annual volume of production allowed was 30,000 gallons These wineries had to produce top-quality wines to survive with such restrictions and limited production. Okanagan cottage and commercial wineries up and down the valley have won many medals in international wine festival competitions. Our wine industry has already proven it can adapt to meet the changing preferences of consumers.

An important initiative that their proposal contains is a marketing promotion program development package. The industry has unanimously agreed to new and relatively stringent wine quality standards for British Columbia appellation wines, because the key to create a growing and successful grape and wine industry in British Columbia is to increase the quantity and quality of production of premium wines and to profitably market these wines.

The wine industry has already proposed a marketing plan to enhance and promote the industry's new direction. The British Columbia Grape Marketing Board, in a report entitled "The Required Elements of a British Columbia Premium Wine Policy," concluded that any new premium wine policy should help the establishment of new, small wineries specializing in premium wine production. With the government sponsored removal of lower-quality grape varieties and the advent of new vine quality standards, the industry is in a strong position to promote its new direction.

One of the main goals of the new B.C. premium wine policy is to maximize the potential of the remaining premium grape acres. The policy must also foster the replanting or the new plantings of premium grape acreage.

The industry has proposed that the new policy should encourage the development of wineries that produce wine made from 100 percent British Columbia grapes. Another important recommendation they brought forward is for the formation of a wine commission to encourage and promote B.C. appellation wines. The Grape Marketing Board believes that a British Columbia premium wine commission should be established. A commission would coordinate the development and expansion of the British Columbia premium wine industry and would promote the marketing of British Columbia wines so that both growers and wineries could achieve substantial sustained growth and profit.

The main task of the wine commission would be to develop and implement a master marketing plan for B.C. appellation wines. It would provide the timely, cohesive and directed action so necessary to guide and accelerate the development of such a new industry. The wine commission would include members from the grape-growing and wine-producing sectors and staff from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

[10:45]

Wine standards is another area that they have touched upon. Well-designed wine standards are inherent to the establishment of British Columbia as a legitimate premium wine region at home and abroad. New British Columbia wine standards must mirror standards adhered to in other parts of the world to ensure continued improvement in British Columbia wine quality.

Mr. Speaker, I will complete this during my rebuttal time.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed most appropriate that I respond on behalf of the New Democrats to this important topic. I and my colleagues in the New Democrats are most impressed by the estate wine industry in British Columbia.

It's indeed unfortunate — tragic, in fact — that the free trade agreement puts this industry in great jeopardy. It's tragic that this government was one of the strongest supporters of free trade in the entire country. This Premier, this caucus and this government supported something which undermined this important industry. I wonder where the member for Okanagan South was during the historic debate on free trade. Was he protecting the industry then? Where was the member for Boundary-Similkameen and those members in the Okanagan who supported an initiative which undermined a very vital industry, among other industries, in that region? They were nowhere; they were silent. They were silent in the face of the Premier and this government's support for free trade and those initiatives.

It's of course ironic, in addition, that this is a government that paid grape growers to plant red grapes and then had to pay them to pull them out. I wonder whether the aromatic smell of the grapes that the member talked about was the grapes rotting on the vines because of inept planning policies of this administration.

We believe that there are real possibilities for the estate wine industry in British Columbia, and we support the initiatives to move to a premium wine commission. We support the attempts to find a high-quality wine market niche in places like San Francisco in California. We think there are possibilities. It's interesting that the government now is attempting to find ways to help the industry, to find ways around the GATT ruling and ways around the free trade agreement. By the way, while the GATT rulings cause some concern, it is also true that the free trade agreement makes GATT rulings binding, which they never were before, and much different in magnitude.

[ Page 8295 ]

Other provinces sought exemptions from the free trade agreement for their important industries, but not this administration. This government supported the Prime Minister and never once mentioned the grape industry. David Peterson, the Premier of Ontario, fought for the grape industry, but no one on that side of the House did, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The Premier is heckling. I remember when the Premier ran for the Liberal Party leadership. I don't know what happened on the road to Damascus, but he joined the Social Credit Party. He's now responsible in many respects for the plight of the grape growers and the wine industry.

We think there's real potential, in spite of these initiatives, for the premium wine industry to find that niche in the United States market in particular, and to upgrade the quality of their wines. They've come a long way. As I said at the outset, we're most impressed by their quality and by the type of individual involved in that industry, and we support any attempts to move to continue the viability of that industry, in spite of the fact that it's in great jeopardy because of initiatives by the federal government, supported by this administration.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to take the opportunity to advise the immediately preceding member, who spoke about the grape and wine industry, that this province will continue to lead — let me assure you — in grape production and quality and premium wines. We are set on an objective. As the member for Okanagan South stated very clearly, there are golden opportunities in this industry.

Even though you criticized free trade and GATT, you well know that this country lives by GATT rules The industry was under attack from a GATT decision I can assure you that, recognizing that as a province and as a country, we know we had to make adjustments, and this government took the lead in making those adjustments to encourage that the opportunity presented itself for those grape producers to be able to produce a premium-quality 100 percent B.C.-content wine. We will continue toward that goal. I am positive that the industry will thrive and B.C. will be recognized by those standards.

MR. SERWA: I'd like to conclude my presentation before I respond to the second member for Vancouver East, with his sensitive appreciation of this.

Appellation controls and labelling regulations are also very important factors relating to the challenges facing the image of British Columbia wines. The lack of that image can be attributed to the lack of virtually any standards and appellations that had been previously applied. To attack this problem, the wine industry has recommended the promotion of a new image to show its commitment to quality. The end result will be wholesalers, retailers and consumers who will be able to differentiate between a true British Columbia wine and a wine produced, bottled and blended in British Columbia from grapes or wine from other regions.

I believe that this local initiative put forward by the British Columbia Grape Marketing Board is a significant step towards greater prosperity for the wine industry, It is a positive and confident step into our future. The wine industry will be well positioned in today's ever-increasing competitive market. I congratulate the industry for its entrepreneurial spirit. Through the private enterprise system and faith in the principles and success that guided our past, we can look forward to a magnificent future in the wine industry.

The sensitivity of the member for Vancouver East can probably be displayed most effectively in his comments on the people engaged in agriculture who have land removed from the agricultural land freeze. His statements were that if there was any appreciation in the value of the land, the appreciation should be taxed away fully at the time of the transaction. It reflects on the commitment of the New Democratic Party towards agriculture: tax everything away from them.

The member was certainly off track and very poorly informed when he referred to the free trade agreement as the driving force. In actual fact, the international GATT agreement is driving us in this direction. The provincial government, the Premier of British Columbia, the Minister of Agriculture and the government itself are all to be heartily congratulated for this, which to my knowledge is the only compensation package arranged between the federal and provincial governments in recognition of free trade concerns.

The wine industry has been brought to its knees, but it has risen. It is facing the future in a bright, objective and positive way. I believe that we have a strong future, which will continue to grow in the Okanagan to raise the level of tourism, and there are a variety of initiatives which will allow this to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. L. HANSON: Bill 46 amends four existing statutes. The Debt Collection Act is amended to change the forum for appeal of directors' decisions. Procedural amendments are made to the Human Rights Act to enable the council to deal with the increased caseload.

Thirdly, three sections of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act are amended. These sections deal with

[ Page 8296 ]

brew pubs and the Liquor Appeal Board's ability to set its procedures and fines for the illegal sale of liquor. The Liquor Distribution Act is amended to establish an appeal mechanism to deal with product listing applications and give cabinet the authority to make appeal regulations.

Bill 46 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.

Orders of the Day

SCHOOL ACT
(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 67; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 103 approved.

On section 104.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a very concrete amendment: that this House delete subsection (1)(a), which is easily labelled the "contracting-out clause." Let me make some comments about our rationale for seeking the deletion of this clause in our deliberations.

Let me preface my comment by a quote from the royal commission about the state of change, if you like. To a considerable extent, this very simple statement provides a kind of feeling for this clause that I want to deal with in substance. It says: "Changes" — and the commission is speaking of legislative changes — resulted in confusion on the part of teachers and others during the life of the commission." It notes: "Such changes, when introduced without consultation and due regard for implementation, helped create feelings of acrimony and distrust."

The past year has been a time of incredible change, both proposed and in process, in the educational system. It's been a period, too, when there has been considerable optimism about transforming our educational system, as the minister usually states, with an emphasis on individual learners. We have applauded those initiatives and changes. This particular clause, which is a very broad enabling clause, is premature in its presentation at this time. It allows the board, subject again to this act, the regulations and the orders of the minister, "to enter into an agreement to purchase managerial or other services with respect to the operation of schools...to purchase educational services that will be under the general" — and I want to emphasize that — "supervision of an employee of the board who is a member of the college...."

[11:00]

There needs to be a much sturdier framework, based on consultation, for this section to move ahead at this time. This contracting-out clause affects every aspect of the board's operation. It could affect central board services, support services, custodial services, secretarial services or any kind of student support services under the next clause on support services for schools. And, of course, it could affect education programs, under the reference to education services.

In its present form I think it is seen as a totally unveiled, stark statement of the government's bent to privatize the system. It is so broadly enabling that it opens up the school system to a balkanization without any framework. On behalf of the members of our side of the House, I want to state categorically that we are not speaking about breaking down the walls of the system or preventing that from happening. What we are saying in opposing subsection (a) is that the framework which is provided for that contracting-out in this bill is inadequate and unspecified.

It has the impact of affecting every aspect, and not only of the people who work in the school district under the school board; it has the potential to have an impact on the economy of the communities in which the school district operates. Let me just cite an example, Mr. Chairman. Take the issue of custodial services. Under this clause, those services can be contracted out. In many other jurisdictions, such services are now contracted out under conditions that provide virtually no protection for workers in terms of wages and benefits. That contracting-out can indeed have the effect of creating job ghettos that provide low wages, no benefits and poor working conditions for the people who are employed. It can also affect the economies of the small communities of the province, where these workers have had steady, reliable, good-paying jobs that were sure to be there. They have been sure to be paid at a reasonable rate and sure to have stability. That helps many of the small-town communities during the time of the boom and bust of resource-industry economic downturns. That's just one example of the kind of thing that can come from this kind of broad clause.

The minister on other occasions around the business of writing contracts has made conditions that have affected the quality of jobs and the pay for jobs. On the issue of educational services, there is still much that needs to be done around the development of the curriculum process, a development that needs to take place in a public forum. We have called for the mandating of a curriculum advisory committee that would put into place the framework I believe needs to be there before a clause like this appears in a bill and is operationalized.

We need to have a reasonable timetable. We need to have consultation and due regard for implementation before we move in this direction. We need to give people the time to work on the formative tasks with a commitment to our public schools, to kids and to the teachers who work in the system.

The last year has been a year of tremendous activity, tremendous working together, tremendous change in the works. If you like, we've started where the kids start, at kindergarten and in the primary grades. The work there is going ahead with, I believe, the cooperation, enthusiasm and commitment of all involved.

This clause, which opens up the whole system, is premature and ill defined. It is a vague contracting-

[ Page 8297 ]

out clause which in the perspective of the government's privatization initiative leaves everyone uncertain and unclear about how it will work. It is a clause that right now is dysfunctional and contradictory to the goal of stabilization, trust and gradual due process over the ten years that the minister has himself stated he and the ministry will need to fully implement the activities of the royal commission.

There may indeed be a need for a clause that describes how the walls will go down and how more diversity and choice will come into the system, but we need to have time to look at that framework with the stakeholders. We need to have time for that whole process to be seen to be In place before we look at a blanket contracting-out clause such as this.

just to conclude on this particular matter, Mr. Chairman, I want to note the one other area where we do have contracting-out, if you like, where we do have a privatized education system in the post-secondary sector. We have a system that is one of the largest in Canada, where there are, on the last record that I've seen, well over 400 private training institutions that are totally unregulated. There is one person — one person — in the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training who is responsible for the licensing of those particular private institutions.

The models that exist do not inspire trust. The government's agenda to privatize does not inspire trust. We need to have trust and framework for this clause to be in a bill at this time. I am urging the minister to support the deletion of the clause until the work has been done that will define, through due process, what this particular clause would entail, and then to make sure that the legislation is clear about the framework, the limits and the context, and bring it back when that work has been done. Such an action would at this stage of the game be an appropriate one in the long-range plans of the minister to transform the system. I would urge support for our amendment which would delete 1040)(a).

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I cannot support the amendment. I think the member could well have anticipated that had she related it to the act. The member has chosen to interpret this as blanket contracting-out, and ignores "subject to this act, the regulations," etc. I think it was section 19, a previous section we have passed, that said you cannot employ other than teachers to teach. So how the member sees this as contracting-out I don't know.

Boards are responsible employers. They are governed by the act, by the regulations. They are also governed by contractual arrangements that they have made with their employee groups. I am convinced that the boards are responsible and are accountable for their decisions.

The member makes the point that we shouldn't have in an enabling act the right for anything to happen until we have decided everything and exactly what is going to happen.

If I accept this amendment, it virtually removes from the boards the power to contract out busing, as they do now, the power to contract out many things that are being contracted out, if you want to put it in those terms — contractual arrangements for busing throughout this province. It would rule out the possibility of providing the special needs that the member made a great pitch for last night: that there has to be more consideration of special needs. The member must note that where those educational services can be purchased again specifies that it must be under the direction of a member of the college — a teacher, an administrator. Now I know you don't like administrators, but they're an important part of the system, and they are teachers. So for special needs, if the member would look at section 106, deleting this section or this clause will in effect make section 106 inoperative.

We have said that over the next year we are going to have discussions and consultation as to how health services, social services, Solicitor-General services, legal services can be provided in the school system. There is provision for the board to hire people to do it themselves. There may be a need for that board to purchase services from those other ministries, under the supervision of a member of the college, whether it be counselling for someone who has been abused, or something of that nature. So those are the types of things, and I could go on and on with that.

The member mentioned no consultation. All of the things that I'm talking about were a consultation process and as much as possible was shown except the final draft, which the member knows the House rules don't allow me to put out for public discussion. I know there have been admonitions to me to put this off for a year while we discuss it. That would simply put everything on hold and make it that much more difficult to get anywhere, to get anything started next year. The time to start is now. Right now, today, at EPAC they're discussing the framework for these types of things in the regulations. They're discussing the regulations, so there's consultation going on as to how this is to be implemented. That should at least satisfy the member.

To delete this, to take this out, is not thought out. It's thought out from one perspective, one interpretation that then the member chooses to find some examples from of how that interpretation would provide something evil, without relating it to the rest of the act. If I accept this deletion, it really nullifies a great deal of good in the act. If there's any potential harm, that will be discussed: advisory committees in the consultation process, the responsible attitudes of the board, the contractual arrangements. In other words, it can be looked after if there's any harm possible, and the good here has great potential.

Amendment negatived.

On section 104.

MS. MARZARI: I want to refer to 1040)(b) in the context of a child care plan for the province. The

[ Page 8298 ]

schools being the hub of our communities, and knowing that 200,000 children in our province between the ages of one and a half and 12 could benefit from licensed, safe child care, it seems to make some sense that we build into our schools some provision for a child care arrangement.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A point of order. I know the member is a strong advocate of child care centres, child care facilities and child care programs or day care programs, and I commend her for that view; but it has nothing to do with this section of the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member could rephrase or keep her comments to 104, it would be appreciated, please.

MS. MARZARI: I think the minister is helping to answer the question right now, because as I read 1040)(b) I see that boards and the minister may "enter into an agreement concerning the promotion, development or operation of recreational and community services." I think we all on this side of the House at least agree that the provision of child care is very much a community service, and one which has to be built as a community service so that our communities can take it seriously and start to rely on competent and safe care.

I would ask the minister — even though I think he's already answered my question — whether or not we could interpret the (b) section of subsection (1) to assume that child care could be one of the community services built in and whether or not that clause could be coupled with clause 116, as it is in Ontario, where the ministry insists that any construction of a new school building shall incorporate within it plans for child care centres, either early child care or after-school child care. It seems to me there's a complement there. If we use 104 and 116 together, the minister could in fact create child care as a community service in this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to that is yes. It can be interpreted to include that. I thought we were going to get into a debate on all of the merits of child care, which I felt had no place. This makes it possible. It's wonderful, isn't it?

Sections 104 and 105 approved.

On section 106.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to ask the minister a few questions to clarify the clause. It is, I think, the first time in the act where we've had such a clear statement of a mandate for the school system.

Let me ask the minister to clarify or expand on the statement: "A board shall provide health services, social services and other support services for schools...." What do we mean by "shall provide"? Can the minister also give us some indication of what he thinks might be included in the other services that are suggested here? Who's going to be responsible for the management, the supervision and the funding of such services? Who makes decisions about who is eligible?

Let me give an example of what I'm looking for in the minister's response. Social Services and Health, of course, already have a very strong working relationship with the school districts and the schools of the province, but their mandates are very often not preventive or long-term but really crisis management initiatives; that's probably especially true with Social Services and Housing. If there is a need for longer-term and more developmental and preventive services, who makes the decision about the provision of service? Finally, given the broad right of appeal to parents in clause 11 of the bill, would the failure of a board to provide some of these services be subject to appeal?

There are probably a number of other questions that might be asked, but really what I'm inviting the minister to do is to provide us with some interpretation of this clause in respect to management, supervision, authority for the services, financial arrangements, eligibility of students and access to appropriate and very much needed services — the right of appeal if those services aren't provided.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll be delighted to interpret or explain.

The royal commission made the point very strongly that schools are being asked to do everything, and that there is confusion about whose responsibility it is— the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Services, the Ministry of Education. They also made the point very strongly that even though the mandate of the schools should be narrowed, these services are essential for the development of the whole child. The member must be aware that when we put out our policy directions, we said that within the next year we will be working out a protocol arrangement with the other ministries to try and clarify that. The royal commission report really said that you've got to clarify these areas of responsibility and how it's provided. I've indicated that in some cases boards could hire the people to do it, in other cases they might fund someone from the other ministry to come in. All those protocol arrangements are being discussed and worked on.

What this act does.... Whatever arrangements come up to provide those services, it will be possible for that to happen, and the orders section of this is to ensure consistency in every case when this arrangement is done. I think it's the section that says we don't have to go back and write a new act or amend a new act in order to provide those services as they are worked out.

I can't give you what the responsibilities are for each case, but they are being worked out, and the problem will not be, I guess, in dealing with whether or not the service will be, but to convince the other ministers that they're necessary and whether they should send in the nurse or whether the school board should hire the nurse, counsellor, psychologist or

[ Page 8299 ]

whatever. It will have to vary across the province. We're trying to make sure the services are consistently available, and we're working on the protocol agreements.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is another enabling clause, and it's a big one, as I think I and the minister would agree. I take from his word "convince" that in respect to the development of these protocols, the minister is, I hope, going to be a strong advocate for a broad base of services that really do enhance and contribute to the other goals of education. I think one of the problems that we have had, first of all, is that services haven't been available and school districts, school teachers and other staff, as the minister has noted, have tried to fill in. Also, very often the services are as determined by those ministries, which may not always be in the best interests of the needs of the kids in the school at that time. So I'm hoping that what I'm hearing the minister say — and I'm quite happy to hear his response — is that he'll be pushing for services under this particular mandate, in cooperation with the industries that are going to be involved, that will genuinely provide for the needs of kids in the system.

One other confirmation that I want to have is that the cost of these services will not be added to the fiscal framework if they are social services, if they are health services, if they are Attorney-General services; or if they are added, that they will be added not as something that comes under the fiscal framework but is totally funded, in fact, by the ministry. That broadened mandate requires a very careful look as the minister looks at the review of funding and taxation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, very clearly the member asked if I'm going to be an advocate. If the member will read this section, I think the evidence is right there. This section says: "A board shall provide health services, social services and other support services for schools in accordance with any orders made by the minister." Compared to the trouble I had getting the other ministers to agree, you're being very supportive of it. In other words, a board shall provide those. Now you say you want me to be an advocate. For heaven's sake, I can't be a stronger advocate than that.

Then the member says it should not show up in the fiscal framework. Suppose there's money in the fiscal framework for special needs, for special services. You say you can't use that money out of the fiscal framework to allow the school to pay for a physiotherapist or a counsellor. I can't confirm that one.

MS. A. HAGEN: One last word, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to have it pay for a counsellor, but if it's a physiotherapist, I think the Health ministry should pay for it — it's a health service. If it is going to come under the mandate, then there needs to be consultation. If we're going to broaden the mandate of the school system under our present funding formula, then I hope that broadened mandate is clearly defined in the minister's review over this next year when he's looking at funding and taxation. People want services to be available. But let's remember that some of that broadened mandate really could have the effect of simply shifting the tax burden onto the local taxpayer. That's something that I know is under review. I hope the minister just keeps that in mind. I welcome the section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 106 to 123 inclusive approved.

On section 124.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I want to ask just two questions on this long part. It will be easier if I do that in a kind of generic way rather than trying to deal with each section, and then we'll be able to move along.

The finance section of the bill is, as the minister has noted, under review at this time. There are, with I think a couple of exceptions, no changes from current practice around funding and taxation issues as they relate to provision of dollars for our school system. I want to just ask the minister at this time whether he can give us some measure of the increased mandate that the bill we're debating will impose on the school system and whether the reflection of that increased mandate will be, in fact, accommodated in the current funding for the 1989-90 school year. I can't name what those changes might be, but they could be under the clause that we were just debating, services for children, in health and social services, and so on. It could be in the area of adult education, which is something that the board is now empowered to provide. We didn't have an opportunity last night to inquire about the funding for that education if people are coming back to get high school graduation. Perhaps the minister could comment a little bit about that and about the accommodation that's taking place in this year when there are changes being contemplated.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I hope we're not trying to mix apples and oranges here.

These are the obligations, the responsibilities, in the legislation of what shall be provided to provide an educational program for students. In some cases it may be some expansions, as members see it; in other cases it's a clarification of what the boards do. But the mandate, I guess, remains to serve the best interests of the students in the province.

The amount of funding is not a legislative issue; that's a budget issue. All I can say is that the fiscal framework has been updated each year, on advice. More things have been included. The budget has been increased. We have indicated $1.4 billion over ten years for the implementation of the new programs that the Sullivan report has told us to do, plus the $1.5 billion, I guess, for the capital. So yes, there's extra money there, but just where it will be applied and in what way is a budget discussion and will

[ Page 8300 ]

always be a budget discussion; it will not be legislated.

[11:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments. But you know, when we talk about educational finance, we're talking about the dollars that people have for the things they're required to do by the legislation.

The minister has noted $1.4 billion for the implementation of the royal commission. I remind him that it's actually $1.1 billion of new money. I remind him that there's only $43 million, plus some reallocation, in this year's budget.

I'm just speaking at this time of the concerns that I hear from school districts and from people in classrooms who are trying to stretch the resources they have, to do the things that by the act, the regulations and the orders of the minister they're required to do They want some assurance that those dollars are going to be there, particularly if this bill says there are some additional services that the boards didn't know about or weren't in place when budgets were planned last year. Forty-three million dollars in 75 school districts doesn't go very far. I think there's concern that what we're looking at here is, yes, a more clearly defined statement of what schools are to do — excellent; but concern that the resources will not be there for that. That concern is particularly true right now, because we don't have any changes. We're really looking at a status quo in respect to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one other question in regard to this section on finance; in respect to the tax on non-residential land. Does the minister have any public policy statement on why the rates are what they are — how those rates are set? I know I have the indulgence of the Chair in dealing with finance in a broad way. That was the other question that I wanted to ask. It actually comes under division 4 of this part, but if I may ask it at this time, then we'll be able to move with this section.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly delighted in other venues to discuss the budgeting and the finance. I'm sure that we'll have those discussions and they'll be ongoing with all the interested parties. At least, I can't visualize people not wanting to discuss budget matters further.

As for how the taxes are applied — the non-commercial and that sort of thing — I'm sorry, I'll have to indicate that that's the Finance minister's problem We try and indicate how much money we need to have to run the education system. I guess you could say we have a contractual arrangement with the Minister of Finance. I tell him how much we need and how we're going to spend it, and have to justify it, and then I let him worry about coming up with the money. Because of that worry, he's not too enamoured with me on all occasions, and neither are some of the taxpayers, if you're getting any of the messages that I am.

MS. A. HAGEN: I feel a little uneasy, Mr. Chairman, leaving this whole section with such limited attention. Let me just exhort the minister to keep it up, in terms of the resources that are needed for the system, because that's one of the things that Mr. Sullivan said loud and clear: that the system was under-resourced.

The challenge that the minister has set for his ministry and for the thousands of people that work in the system is quite daunting, and very important to the future of the province. He has our full support in anything that he might do that can add to the resources that are available for that task, including increased spending. I hope that the minister and I have a common perspective on that agenda. If we have that agreement this morning, it will make Friday morning well worth it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member for that support. I would hope that instead of her blaming us when the taxpayers are complaining, I would also get the member's support to convince the taxpayers that education is a good investment and that the taxes may not be exorbitant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have your support on that? Well, that's wonderful.

Sections 124 to 142 inclusive approved.

On section 143.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 143., 
in the proposed subsection (6) by striking out "A" and substituting "Subject to section 141 (10), a".]

Amendment approved.

Section 143 as amended approved.

Sections 144 to 180 inclusive approved.

On section 181.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did we go one too far, hon. member?

MS. A. HAGEN: No, Mr. Chairman. You are doing wonderfully well. We are really copasetic this morning.

Let me just ask one question in respect to the Ministry of Education. Perhaps, for those people who are following our debate through the Hansard record, I would just note that we are now dealing with a section that relates to the organization and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education. It's a very important section that enables us to bring together some of the themes and issues we have been following as threads and mazes through this whole act.

[ Page 8301 ]

I want to get some of the minister's sense of how he sees the ministry working with school districts and with the stakeholders — just a little bit of a statement, if you like, about the role of the ministry. We've been talking a lot about the importance of communication, cooperation, trust, consultation, due process and all of those aspects of the anatomy of organizations that keep them healthy and thriving.

I'd like the minister just to comment briefly about his philosophical perspectives, or his intents and goals. This is an opportunity for the minister to say something about how he sees the role of his ministry and the people who work within that ministry in this large, multi-governed — or bi-governed, if you like — bilateral governance of education where we have the provincial government as the constitutional authority. We have duly constituted school districts and we have the schools of the province, with many powers and responsibilities as well.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you want the five-minute version or the six-hour version? There is so much in what you have asked me to say.

I suppose, in a nutshell, I believe that all of us exist to serve the best interests of the students and, through the students, society. That is our fundamental purpose. Without that goal and that mandate, there is really no reason for our existence — not personally, but in the corporate or structural sense.

I believe that things happen best when they are done in a cooperative and consultative manner, and I certainly have committed myself to that to the extent possible. That does not mean that at some time I don't have to say: "And everybody shall do the same thing." Consultation means pulling together all of the views of people, but you can't go on consulting forever. At some point decisions have to be made. To the extent that those decisions can be a total consensus, that is the best way to get things done.

I know that when the people who are carrying out the activities take ownership — and by that I mean that they believe that is the thing to do — that is the most effective system you can possibly have. I suppose in that sense I am committed to carrying that out; I am committed to the consultative process. I accept the fact that Barry Sullivan said that there will be a diversity of opinion, but that diversity is not necessarily wrong.

I don't always expect people to agree with me. I would like to think that most of our discussion can and should be on correct information, rather than on misapprehensions that are created by incorrect assumptions. I would like to get on with the wonderful opportunity the Sullivan report has given us. The royal commission report, "A Legacy for Learners," has said: "Embark in a new direction. If you do that, students will be better served and society will be better served." I happen to believe that can happen.

In this legislation we have put in, I guess for the first time, that from to time — it's impossible to specify how often this should happen — the Minister of Education shall make a statement of the policy for education in the province. We have made that statement now in our mission statement, in our mandate statement, in our description of the educated citizen and that sort of thing, but from time to time we are now obligated to say: "And this is the policy." That's the short version, and I can expand on that.

I believe we've got a golden opportunity here. I think we have much evidence of how much we have benefited from the input of the various stakeholders, whose continued involvement we have assured, and how much better it has been. We've got the opportunity here to really move into making our system one of the best for all people concerned. I would like to think that our focus will be on how we can interpret that towards that objective and focus on our similarities and our common interests rather than on our differences.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the Minister of Health has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: Today in the gallery we have two very important people. One is my son, here visiting from Calgary. He's a schoolteacher, and it's appropriate that he visit the House at this time, since we're discussing Ministry of Education legislation. With him today is a friend, Pam Morgan, a professional photographer from Los Angeles, California. My son teaches music in a school in Calgary. Although he hasn't had time to hear the different discussions that take place in the House, I would like to tell him that when he goes back to his classroom, he'll find they're very intelligent, very organized, very respectful of each other, contrary to what happens in the House at times.

Anyway, would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would also like leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, parenthetically to the minister's son who is a music teacher, I'll tell him that I'm also a musician, and one thing that he'll notice in this House is that we avoid parallel movement. A musician will understand that.

I would like to ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to wish birthday greetings to a colleague of ours. This colleague and I have a couple of things in common: we were both elected in '79, we're both mediocre tennis players, and we both have the same initials. Would the House wish a happy birthday to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith).

Section 181 approved.

[ Page 8302 ]

On section 182.

MS. A. HAGEN: This section deals with the jurisdiction of the minister. It really provides in an umbrella clause a statement of the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the minister, who may, without restriction, make orders on a whole range of matters governing the provision of educational programs, requirements for graduation, the general nature of those programs, preparing for an assessment, resource materials and so on. I want to ask the minister, first of all, why it is necessary in this particular case to use the words "without restriction," given that what we are looking at, we hope, is legislation that provides a clearly defined framework within the act and the regulations. What's the force of that particular statement?

[11:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I understand it, that's the legal version of making sure that when a consensus is reached about graduation requirements, the minister can in fact say the graduation requirements apply across the board. You could use a lot of other examples. I guess you take the connotation of "without restriction, may make orders," and then it gives the specific areas which may give orders, so in effect it does tend to have a limiting effect.

I can't just give any orders without restriction. It says subject to this act, subject to the regulations and subject to determining the general nature of educational program for use in schools, and it specifies educational programs guides. This is the sort of thing that is worked out by consultation, by curriculum committees, and then if that is In fact to be the curriculum for that group of students in the school there has to be a way to say, "And that shall be the curriculum," rather than: "Now we have all very carefully worked out a curriculum, but do as you like." That's really what this section is about.

MS. A. HAGEN: We're going to zero in on one particular clause or part of this section around the powers of the minister. We're choosing this because we know there is a good deal of concern in the community at large about the ministerial powers here, because the ministry has moved ahead with great speed on the issue of assessment and accountability, which is section (d), which speaks of preparing a process for the assessment of the effectiveness of educational programs and also empowers the minister to require boards to participate in a process of comparison of standards provincially, nationally and internationally.

There are genuine concerns abroad. I spoke of some of those last night. I know the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has some questions and concerns, and I would like to ask him to enter the debate at this time.

MR. CASHORE: My comments are in relation to (d) of section 182. I put them in the context of our general good feelings about this act. In the explanatory notes it refers to the act being learner-focused and school board authority being increased. There are some concerns with regard to the powers in this act as to just why this particular part, (d), is necessary.

There is some concern that it opens the door to centralized control of information with regard to students, and there's the potential of eroding the value of the local administration with regard to such information. It raises a question of why it would be necessary to go into the cost of implementing the monitoring system. I believe that the figure of $6 million has been referenced on this. My general questions are: why is this justified? Why is it necessary? What needs to happen that wasn't happening before?

When we're thinking about information being collected on students, isn't it better if we recognize that this information is now available within the districts? If we are indeed recognizing the importance of enhancing the role of the district, then who better to interpret to the ministry what the meaning of that information would be? Hence, that should be the source of receiving information. The district, after all, has the basis for understanding the meaning of the information, and numbers really have no inherent meaning outside of interpretation. It would be the district that would be in the best position to provide that.

I think we need to be concerned that if these powers result in the labelling of students into categories, we're moving away from one of the values that we want to achieve in education, the value that would be related to a more decentralized process. There are concerns, after all, about the invasion of privacy or the potential for that. At the very least, we need assurances on the record that that is not the case. I do note that there are some assurances provided in bulletin 360B which I think have addressed some of these issues.

I would also be interested in knowing what measures will be used to derive data on human and social development. Even though that might not be the kind of data that will be derived until up into the next year, there is a potential for that in the future. There's a real concern that this section, in combination with other initiatives, will result in real learning being supplemented by efforts simply to achieve higher scores on tests. We know that that isn't really going to provide the result that this act seeks to achieve.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If even a fraction of the motives for collection of data were true that are being attributed to us in the attempt to criticize, I would be more paranoid than any of you. It is conceivable that at any time some other government or some group could walk in and amend this act to remove all protection for confidentiality. It is conceivable, but it certainly is not likely to happen.

In this legislation we have tried to assure confidentiality, saying that boards must set up systems to ensure the confidentiality, but they must make it

[ Page 8303 ]

available to parents. We have said that every member in the ministry must be sworn to confidentiality. If you'll notice something, that's not just a blind statement. It says that any member who contravenes that confidentiality commits an offence, period. That definition legally means that that person commits an offence under the Offence Act, and that's a pretty serious problem. We have tried to do that.

I know it's impossible for the member, and sometimes I find it almost impossible, to keep up with everything that's going on through the consultation process and through the ministry, because I can't get into all the administration. I can tell you that the Sullivan report did say:

"Two final themes that ran through much of the public discussion should also be mentioned. One was the concept of accountability or what was sometimes termed responsibility. It was widely observed that the public has a right to hold its institutions accountable for the quality of services they render and the decisions they make, at least to the extent that these decisions are under the control of such institutions."

And it goes on. We have said that accountability — financial and educational — should be in there.

We also put out a bulletin on the system on June 20. 1 have made it available to my opposition critic, but I know everybody can't read it; I'm sorry. It says: "Student evaluation is a classroom-based activity. Teachers now deal with very complex programs of instruction and need more detailed, individual data to properly evaluate and report on the progress of each student. Technology can help teachers manage this task." So that is in there.

I suppose I'm familiar with the system where we used to spend hours and hours in the fall adding up how many students were taking English, in which course and which grade, and all of that. That used to be called form K. The bureaucrats in the ministry used to send it to me when I was a school principal. I had to spend a lot of hours putting that form together. If the program the student is taking is there and is modified from time to time in the computer, then we can ask districts how many students they have taking French 11. Bang, they have it.

We expect that this information that we want centrally will eliminate a lot of the forms. School boards have been asked to say whether they can do it electronically this year. We gave the money, remember, back in March to provide the equipment. There is still a lot of work being done on the software. We said: "Can you do it electronically? Are you geared up, or do you need another year to do it manually?" Eventually we'll move over. There's even a form that specifies the type of data the ministry is looking for. It's basic data.

I might point out in any event that only information summarized on a provincewide basis will be reported to the public by the ministry. The ministry does not wish to standardize or formalize classroom activities, but rather to help teachers manage. The ministry does not wish to replace regular teacher evaluation practices with a student information system link. The ministry does not wish to access school or district files, or to create a central registry of student records which is updated routinely. It goes on to say what the ministry does intend.

I hope that by expanding on the member's question I can alleviate some of the concerns out there. Of course, if some of the things that have been attributed to the intent here happened, it would be a violation of privacy. We have said that there is privacy, and there is privacy under the Charter of Rights. We have tried to assure confidentiality.

Yes, we do want to know if we can better track whether students are dropping out or whether they're showing up elsewhere. We're still working specifically on what we need for that purpose. We need a few things provincially. We can eliminate all of those things being sent in on forms if they're available on the computer. The computer will never do anything other than provide you with data that's fed into it. I hope that can alleviate some of the member's concerns and certainly some of the concerns of the public which have actually been generated by the type of thing that was never intended.

MR. JONES: I'll try not to take up too much time, because I know we are pressed for time today and would like to get through as much as possible. I did want to comment on this section, which I would call the Big Brother section of the act — in particular, subsection (d), which talks about assessment.

I'm just wondering if perhaps the minister is planning to expand the size of his office to accommodate some of the computer banks that might be necessary to keep track of the 500,000 students in this province and to use up some of the $6 million that is very clearly going to be used to centralize an information system with impersonal student numbers — a system that very clearly is not child-centred and not teacher-centred. I'm very afraid — and the minister recognizes the concerns out there — that this is going to very much be a ministry-driven school system, and much more centralized as a result of the kind of data-gathering that is going to take place under this assessment program.

The minister can correct me if I'm wrong. He has some circular that I haven't seen and I don't think this side of the House has seen. My understanding is that by September 1990 the ministry will be tracking all students on their intellectual, human, social and career development. I think there's some concern that if, as part of that information, there is information on teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse and other demographic data, there is potential for abuse. I appreciate the minister's remarks about confidentiality. We have confidentiality measures around this chamber as well, yet we know how fast information often travels among members and between the media. I'm hoping that there can be more assurances of confidentiality and that they will not accumulate any information that isn't necessary.

[12:00]

I think the system can profit from an accountability system. Nobody is opposed to that. I'm particularly proud of the work that the minister does when he talks about some of the things that this section

[ Page 8304 ]

refers to — about national and international competitions — when the minister rightly brags about the 13-year-olds who do so well on the math and science assessment both nationally and internationally, I think all British Columbians are proud of those kinds of achievements, as with the students in the Euclid contest and the other mathematics contest. I think we're all justifiably proud of those kinds of achievements of our young people in this province.

I think there is a danger that this information can be abused. It won't be just provincially, nationally or internationally; we'll get down to information being abused that gets down to the level of the district, the school, the individual teacher or the individual student. That potential is there with this system. I think with that potential being there, it's potentially divisive and potentially disruptive.

The section on the system, I hope, is aimed at improving our school system, But I think it's very difficult to collect a lot of the kind of data that is important to measure the success of the school system. Much of that information is completely intangible: a student's love of learning, the individual potential of a student that's mentioned in the preamble. The actual measurement of that human interaction process that goes on for those ten months of the year is very difficult to measure.

I have a concern, too, about the massive expenditure — not the $6 million, not the hardware, not the software — the massive amount of human expenditure that I expect will be going into this process that was not there in the past. People tell me that computers save time; I've never been convinced of that. I find that computers consume much more time than they ever could save. That time is going to be taken up by ministry staff, school staff, secretaries and teachers, and it's going to be at the expense of time spent working with young people. In my experience in chemistry, I spent greater than 10 percent of my time on assessment of students' progress, and because of provincial exams in the last week or so of the course, I spent 100 percent of the time in preparing for that final assessment. So we have a great deal of accountability going on at the classroom level, the district level and at the school level now. I'm afraid that we're going much further in this area here.

I think if we are, as it says in subsection (d) interested in the assessment of the effectiveness of the educational programs, then I'd have to ask the minister why, as an important part of the process measure of the effectiveness of those programs, he would deem to stop collecting data on class size an important part of a process measure in terms of the effectiveness of educational programs.

While I believe that the assessment is important and the accountability is important, I see this whole assessment program as a serious sign that the accountants have taken over. I think it's the opposite of the kind of thing that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was talking about last night in his annual speech on education about the chaining of the school system and of our young people and not freeing their talents. Clearly this kind of centralized system is doing just the opposite of what that member was talking about last night. I think in order to ensure the kinds of safeguards that are necessary to ameliorate the concerns, which are certainly widespread in this province about this system, I would suggest that the whole accountability system, the whole assessment system, be turned over to EPAC for that broad-based input so that the trust that's necessary to make this kind of system work will be in place.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was kind of hopeful that the member might have been aware that EPAC has been dealing with the assessment and making recommendations and bouncing out. It was at EPAC that the discussions came: what factors should be considered? The whole list was put out and then some of them said: "This doesn't make sense, and this doesn't make sense." So EPAC has had quite an input, and the Education Advisory Council, in the future, will have that.

I think the member's first question was: is this going to expand the computer operations of the ministry? No, we have the capacity now to deal with this. I think we can put people to better use than translating information from the handwritten forms now as to how many students there are in your district and how many are taking French 11, or something of that nature, onto records so that we can do a summary for the province. I think it will save a great deal of time.

I don't know whether the member intended it or not, but he said that, in all of his experience, computers don't save time and, I suppose, they're no help. Well, we're committed to a program of $15 million a year — as long as I can keep getting it from the Ministry of Finance — to put the computers into the schools. They have been in the schools, and many teachers have used computers to do report cards, even before anybody suggested it and before it was suggested in the act. So a lot of that is going on. I have to wonder why these people are doing it that way, on computers, and working on it. Despite the member's counsel, we intend to go on with getting computers into schools and using them.

You say it doesn't save any time. I can tell the member that we can pull, "What if we did this to the tax structure, what would be the result?" and somebody can change a factor — I won't pretend I'm computer literate, but I've got people in the ministry who are — and within an hour or two they can say that this would have this effect on each district. They just change the factor and, bang, it runs it off. And you're going to try and tell me that computers don't save time.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The NDP are against computers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't believe that. That's going too far. But with that member I am somewhat confused. Last night he had a great time at me on some of the conflict of interest and then stood up and

[ Page 8305 ]

voted for it, so I can't be sure where that member stands. I guess it depends on where he sits.

I have tried to say that this is not to collect individual student data separately — except I have to correct that. We may need their age, maybe, on the forms so that we know how many 15-year-olds or how many 20-year-olds there are in the school system. We may need that. But we have made it very clear that we are looking for summary information in the ministry. The computers are there, and if it's in the computers anyway, why in heaven's name would we have to say: "Don't put it in the computer; put it all on forms so that we can hire a whole bunch more people in order to translate it from forms into summaries." I have difficulty with that. I guess we'll leave it at that.

Sections 182 to 184 inclusive approved.

On section 185.

MS. A. HAGEN: There's an amendment to 185 standing in my name on the order paper. I will move that amendment and speak to it in a moment, but I want to put it in the context of the whole clause, because it adds a clause. We will then be able to frame the discussion appropriately.

This is the section of the bill that deals with the establishment of the Education Advisory Council, currently known as EPAC, the Education Policy Advisory Committee, that the minister has quite often made reference to in the course of our debate. I noted earlier, and I want to state again, that I am very pleased that the minister has mandated this committee. I think it's an extremely important initiative.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As many of us have done during this debate, I make reference to the Sullivan commission, which notes in its last statement before the recommendation on the establishment of an advisory committee: "We believe that this great resource of human capital, which has immeasurably aided our efforts, could make major contributions to others entrusted with the direction and well-being of the educational system." We believe that that is indeed the potential of this body.

The minister has also made this body representative, and I would hope that that is in the full sense of the word and that those organizations that are a part of the Education Advisory Council in their own right will have the right to appoint their representatives and deal with the manner by which they will inform and involve their membership in that representation.

I'm somewhat disappointed that within the act there isn't some indication of who will be members of EAC, although we have a model in EPAC. I would trust that the regulation, the order-in-council, that is going to indicate what that membership is and prescribe the terms of reference will also be the product of consultation with not only the current group of people but others as well. Consultation is a difficult, time-consuming, not-always-comfortable process, but it is an essential part of our pluralistic and widely geographically dispersed democratic society, and the minister has an important task in structuring how this committee will work.

Having said that, I want to move to the amendment, which is an amendment dealing with a deficiency in this clause that I think is quite major. By its inclusion, it very significantly includes the workings of consultation and development of, particularly, the detailed curriculum assessment expansion and relevance of our school curriculum.

I want to read the amendment into the record. The amendment would require that we add to this section another committee, a committee strongly recommended by the Sullivan commission. The amendment would read: "The minister shall establish a Provincial Curriculum Committee, as a standing committee of the Education Advisory Council, for the purpose of advising the Minister through the Education Advisory Council, on matters affecting curriculum development, implementation and evaluation"; then a procedural addition that would have the terms of reference spelled out in the usual way through orders-in-council.

I believe that there is a strong need for a policy body to deal with curriculum. It would be what I call the workhorse of the Education Advisory Council which deals much more broadly with policy initiatives. It could take a very significant role in refining the assessment processes which the minister has indicated he is committed to developing through a process of consultation.

It would be a statement by the minister of his understanding of the importance of curriculum development as a policy initiative as well, because curriculum development requires not just the professional input that I know comes now with the extensive work of teachers, but in the broad framework of curriculum development it requires the input of business people, of people in labour, of parents, of people who have long experience and wisdom in the community — of seniors — of people concerned about the education of special needs children. By not having that vehicle mandated, I believe that the minister has significantly weakened the import of the Sullivan commission recommendations. The two go hand in hand. They are a part of a structure that was worked on, as I know from discussions with many people who have been hands-on in the whole conceptual development of how we would make the system work.

[12:15]

The inclusion of this amendment, I believe, would be a very significant acknowledgement by the minister of his understanding of those two interlocked committee relationships and a commitment to broad consultation in the development, implementation and assessment of curriculum. I hope that the minister can see that an initiative on his part at this time would be a very welcome statement in the broad community of people concerned with the education of children in the province.

[ Page 8306 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know that some of the amendments brought forth by the member are well intentioned, but they are so narrowly focused, so ill-thought-out in focusing on the one topic, with a complete disregard for the total picture.

Section 1850) says: "The minister shall appoint an education advisory council to advise the minister on policy matters respecting education." I don't know how you can deal with education without dealing with curriculum. In the EPAC, the Education Policy Advisory Committee that we have had, they found they had to develop subcommittees on curriculum subcommittees on assessment subcommittees on evaluation.

I notice that the member made some comment about EAC, and I don't know what derogatory thing you can do with that acronym. I have to go by your practice of somehow or other managing to change administrative officers into something derogatory, as you were alluding to the other night. I don't know what you can do with EAC, because my mind doesn't run in those channels. I am talking about an education advisory council.

What you do with the acronym is your responsibility. I would hope that it doesn't deflect from the real purpose of this. I am not going to accept the amendment. At least I am certainly going to suggest that we don't accept the amendment, because I don't want it limited to a curriculum committee. I want the Education Advisory Council to set subcommittees as it sees fit.

Yes, in the Sullivan report they mentioned the Education Advisory Council and the curriculum. The way the system has worked so far, we feel that to put one in here would be far more limiting than to say that it can be done. Today at EPAC they are discussing the need for a curriculum advisory committee They have a primary one; they have been working on other ones, and I don't want to limit it in the act to one. That committee, I would hope, will set up the subcommittees as required without limitation in the legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a point of clarification. To the member for New Westminster, as you know, I just came into the chair. Did you move the amendment standing in your name?

MS. A. HAGEN: I think I did, Mr. Chairman, but if there is any question for the record, may I now ensure that the amendment standing in my name on the order paper is moved.

MR. JONES: I am trying to decide in my mind how I should vote on this amendment, and it would really help me if I understood the composition of the education advisory committee. My colleague the member for New Westminster raised a number of questions and concerns in her opening remarks on this section about the appointment process and who might be represented there and how those people might come to be members of the Education Advisory Council. It would help me in understanding whether they should be responsible for curriculum if I understood who was going to be there. So could the minister clarify how he sees the composition of the Education Advisory Council?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's a new situation in the province, a new requirement, but we have the good experience and the guidelines that we have had in appointing the Education Policy Advisory Committee last August. We didn't want to spell out a list of names and then end up having a really good representation that should be on there and saying the act doesn't allow it. So it's there, and we intend to do it. I think people would hold us to the basic composition. There might be some changes in that, but the major stakeholders are obviously going to have to be represented.

I don't know whether it was a concern or a commendation that the member expressed on (5). We've said that if the member is not an individual, then the member — meaning the organization — shall appoint their representative. We have covered that off. For instance, the BCTF and BCSTA would logically be on that policy advisory committee. I don't know what other groups, but if we invite the BCTF or the BCSTA to step on there, we have right in the legislation that they are members and will appoint the individuals to represent them. I will not pick them. I would say which organization is involved. So subsection (5) covers that off.

Amendment negatived.

Section 185 approved.

On section 186.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, you've just come into the chair. I have been attempting to facilitate our progress through this bill, and at this point we are prepared to move to the preamble of the bill, which means we're prepared to have you take action on the remaining sections.

Sections 186 to 230 inclusive approved.

On the preamble.

MR. BARNES: I first want to commend the member for New Westminster on her very methodical and, I think, superb critique of the bill. It certainly has been a very special occasion for the province of British Columbia, having to address this new act.

Before I proceed I would like to submit an amendment to the preamble, if that is in order, Mr. Chairman. The preamble, as far as it goes, is quite important and very well stated, but there is just one small point that I would like to talk about. I'm sure the minister will, after hearing what I have to say, probably agree that this amendment is different than all of the other amendments the opposition has moved. You certainly won't have any difficulty agreeing with me.

[ Page 8307 ]

"Whereas the purpose of the British Columbia school system is 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'm merely asking to insert the word "multicultural" between "healthy" and "society," that's all. In so doing I am speaking to what the minister himself has been saying: this bill is forward looking, relevant and an attempt to address the needs of tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, some time ago I placed a question on the order paper to all of the ministries, including the Ministry of Education. I won't read the whole series of questions, just one. I asked the minister to describe the programs that exist in his ministry which address multiculturalism. Part of the reply that I received from the minister was that multiculturalism is a theme that pervades all educational program development, activities in the ministry from the setting of educational goals to production or selection of materials. He went on to state that the definition of an educated citizen refers specifically to tolerance and acceptance of cultural differences.

That is in essence the one flaw in this whole process. I was listening very carefully, for instance, last night to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who had some pretty harsh words to say about the public school system, suggesting that this bill, for instance, had no substance. I'm not suggesting that it has absolutely no substance. After my commending the member for New Westminster and other debaters who have made contributions through the debate on the bill, I certainly had quite a bit to say about some pretty important aspects, and I'm not going to condemn the bill.

I think that the commissioner, the late Barry Sullivan, made it quite clear in his statements, which were reported in his final report called "A Legacy for Learners," that multiculturalism was a concept that should be very much a part of public school legislation and of public school responsibility. He went on to talk at great length in his report about multiculturalism. I'm not going to read every aspect that dealt with multiculturalism in the report, but some aspects of what he had to say should be noted for the record. This is why I know that the minister will want to think very carefully about the importance of including multiculturalism in the preamble of this very important public document.

To my knowledge, nowhere in any public legislation of this province does the word "multiculturalism" appear. We are way behind the rest of the country. We know that there is now a federal multiculturalism act, and we know that all provinces are beginning to come up with multiculturalism policies, and we know that the demographics signify the urgency of making these adjustments if we are going to deal with a far more complex, far more culturally diversified and racially mixed society; if we are going to stem the potential tide, shall we say, of racism, misunderstanding, bigotry, scapegoating and all of the strife and struggles that occur in a society where there is ignorance and lack of understanding. This is why I say that multiculturalism is a fact. It should be included in the preamble, because the whole thrust of the public school system is to prepare students to become good citizens, to learn tolerance, to participate and to make a contribution, as the minister says, to a healthy society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt but, reviewing the amendment, it appears that it is not in order. I refer to Erskine May, twentieth edition, page 554, which states: "Amendments to a preamble and title are also admissible where amendments have been made to the bill which render them necessary." It has been indicated to me that the amendments that have been made do not necessitate a change in the preamble. Therefore, I would rule that the amendment is not in order, and I would ask the member to confine his remarks to the preamble.

[12:30]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ruling, and I certainly don't intend to contest it. I just want to address the concept that I am attempting to enlighten the House about, because I think it's very important. Though we may not be able to reflect this in the preamble, it's unfortunate, because if nothing else we would want to inspire a more enthusiastic response from the public school system, from teachers, from administrators and from the public in general that the public school system recognizes its responsibility.

The public school system is far more than a place strictly of academic experience, of learning the three Rs, so to speak. It is learning about life itself. It's learning about oneself, about one's society, about the political nature of society, about the realities of the diversity of that society.

I will simply conclude my remarks by saying that I'm very excited about this bill. I am very much in support of the initiatives that have been taken, and I do think that some progress has been made as far as this new document is concerned. But it does fall short of the spirit of what I believe the royal commission recommended in terms of a forward-looking document that had substance in the preamble, that inspired teachers, students and the public generally, especially where you have people coming to the public school system who need to settle and adjust.

This is a change that is happening every day. There are going to be complete shifts in the demographics, in the racial mix, and the problem of teaching people how to coexist and function toward a common goal in society is a serious challenge for the public school system.

I don't think we should say that multiculturalism permeates all of the programs and all of the thinking within the public school system when nowhere do you mention the word multiculturalism. This is a fault; it is an omission. I think that upon reflection you will realize how important it would have been to have a preamble in a public document that spoke

[ Page 8308 ]

optimistically about the future and told people that we are catching up with our historic past. We have always been a multicultural society, but we seem not yet prepared to state it in our opening statement in a document as important as this. With regret, I feel this needn't have happened. The government could have made this change, and it would have done us all a great service.

It is so important, Mr. Chairman, that we talk to young people today about multiculturalism and what it means. We must ensure that teachers are prepared to deal with the different races, the different cultures; that the course content reflects the realities of a multicultural society; that seeing is believing; that we want the visible minorities to come forward. We want to have a hands-on kind of culture where what we talk about is happening in the classroom, in the learning situation. This is going to take a little more than the abstract notions that we've had about multiculturalism.

We're talking about specific actions. One very important action would be to amend the preamble so the very first thing people see when they read this legislation is that we recognize that we're a multicultural society; we want people to think about it; we want to grow with it and understand it, because our future depends on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair was a bit lenient in the debate on the preamble

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order on your ruling, Mr. Chairman. You referred to changes or amendments to the preamble that would be required as a result of amendments to the bill. I can understand that; that makes sense. The member for Vancouver Centre is not making a change to the preamble as a result of an amendment. He is recommending an amendment straight to the preamble. I wonder if that could be taken into consideration. This is not as a result of an amendment to the bill, and the ruling is silent on that. I wonder if you would take that under advisement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to advise him that all of those matters were taken into consideration before the ruling was made.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, School Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 67, School Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is a much shorter bill than the other one. "Educational program" has no limitations on it as there are limitations in the School Act, which defines an educational program as being "in the opinion of...." Who in fact determines that the educational program is achieving the goals established by this definition?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The inspector and the inspection process for the schools will determine if they are meeting their mandate in terms of an educational program.

MS. A. HAGEN: Can the minister give me some idea, given the size of the operation, what resources are available to the inspector, how many schools that person is responsible for and what staff resources that person has — trying to be gender-neutral — to carry out those responsibilities on behalf of the people of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am assuming that the question was the size of the inspector's department to do the inspection, because I think you are aware of the number of schools.

The inspector is in charge of the inspection. The inspector has the authority to set up a group of, generally, three experienced educators to do evaluations and assessment. He may go in himself and delegate it to people.

MS. A. HAGEN: just a further word on that, because there is a current situation regarding an independent school, where the concerns about standards in the school came not from the minister's staff but from the community in which the school is located and the health inspection people there.

Is the minister satisfied, in terms of accountability and the assurance that educational programs are being offered, that he has the capacity in his ministry to provide for the necessary inspection and monitoring to ensure that children in the independent school system, who in many instances are receiving funding

[ Page 8309 ]

from the public purse, are being provided what they are supposed to be?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As in the public school system, there are inspection processes in place, but we don't have an inspector sitting in the school each day, on a day-to-day basis. In this process, I think the standard practice is, unless otherwise indicated, for an assessment evaluation to be done every two years.

On the school that the member mentions, there was a committee, and it found it acceptable. That was their report. That's why in the act there is also a requirement to meet municipal and other standards. That came to the attention of the inspector in the morning, and by the afternoon the inspector of schools had indicated: "It has come to our attention that there are some problems. Unless you can give a satisfactory explanation or a justification within one week, your funding will be pulled." So that's pretty good action.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN: This particular clause deals with certification of teachers in the independent schools. Probably one of the most important qualities of all our schools is the calibre of teachers in those schools, and that is of course governed and determined by very careful certification processes.

There is a College of Teachers that certifies teachers in the province. This enables the independent schools to have a separate process available for the certification of their teachers, an independent school teachers' certification committee. I wonder if the minister could explain to us why we have this different classification, and give some characteristics of a teacher classified under the independent schools certification committee that would be different from those of one certified under the standards of the College of Teachers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In certain categories the independent schools must have qualified teachers who meet all of the requirements of the college. The college can issue letters of permission in the public school system. The inspector of schools can issue letters of permission for the teachers in the system. There are the standards there, and as you know, the schools run anywhere from funded to non-funded. The inspector has, according to some people, some awesome powers in being able to determine whether or not that person may teach in the independent schools. I think I indicated before that there may be a situation where a person has a double master's degree in science, and the inspector may assess that and follow up to see if that person can in fact teach. The inspector has those rights. But we want qualified people, and most of the independent schools, since they're dependent upon fees and upon continued support, also want qualified teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister confirm for us whether schools that are not funded are required to have teachers certified under this section of the bill?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe that in the schedule, in the requirements, it says that in some of those schools they have to have 80 percent qualified or certified teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: To have perhaps a more clear and concrete answer, are there schools that will now be registered with the ministry with ten or more students where there is any less requirement than 80 percent certified teachers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The requirement for all independent schools to register and be accountable to us is a brand-new section, so I can't say how many there are out there that haven't had to register and don't get any funding and haven't been involved.

[12:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm talking of the requirement of the act. I recognize that if those schools aren't registered we cannot know. But I want to know: does the act require anything less than 80 percent of certified teachers in an independent school?

The Independent School Act is intended to provide some regulatory power to the ministry regarding standards in all schools of the province. It is a move to meet the public's interest and concern — I think it best to state that this is the public's concern — that children's access to a quality education is indeed protected.

I want to know if this act requires every independent school, which is defined as any school with ten or more students operating in the province for the purpose of providing an education.... Is there a requirement that any fewer than 80 percent of the teachers in those schools will be certified?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I gave the example in category 4. It has to be 80 percent. In categories 1 and 2 I believe it has to be 100 percent. In some of them the requirements are not there. But you have to remember that the one objective of choice of the independent schools is that they are not to be state-controlled. And students do not have to 90 there. It is a matter of choice and a matter of whether or not the parents are willing to pay the fees. Therefore that is a control, so we don't have to say....

But we are saying the schools have to specify what they have. They have to register and they have to subject themselves to an inspection. If the inspection says there isn't a qualified teacher in sight, do you really think people are going to pay money to those unfunded schools? In the ones where we have funding, we have more control, and there has to be certification. I don't quite understand, unless you want to say: "We don't mind choice as long as we have state control to the ultimate degree on it." I can't accept that.

[ Page 8310 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister attempts to put readings on my statements that are totally inappropriate and inaccurate. Our concern is that children in the province are entitled to a quality education from people who have qualifications to teach. That has been public policy in this province for way over 100 years. We as a public responsible for every child in the province in respect to education have a legitimate right to be concerned that those children's educational rights are protected. I won't say more in respect to this. We have certainly had many instances where those kinds of protections are not there.

I'm simply asking that the minister confirm that this particular bill - which improves the regulation, if you like, of those systems for the protection of children — ensures that they have access to education, that those rights are protected, by ensuring that they have teachers who are qualified. We have means by which that can be checked or determined by both this particular bill and the College of Teachers process. If the minister says that, no, class 5 schools, for example — which are the ones he hasn't mentioned — don't fit into that category, I'll simply accept that at this stage, and we should move along, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Technically, in categories 3 and 5 there is not the requirement for certified teachers. But when the member says that every student in British Columbia should be entitled to a public education...

MS. A. HAGEN: A quality education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ...under the direction of qualified teachers, that's there for every person.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would simply note that this section which deals with reports, statements and records is a five-line section with two subsections that provide no requirements whatsoever, except in the broadest terms: "reports and statements in the forms and at the times the inspector requires"; and if the school closes, some records about the closure. Compare that with what we have been talking about in our discussion of the School Act; compare the extensive assessment accountability processes there. I simply note again that there is a concern that schools purporting to provide education for children should have an obligation to provide accountability and assessment that is at least in some way consistent and compatible with the standards — not necessarily all of the processes — required by the public school system; more so if those schools receive public funding, as most independent schools do. In my view, this clause is very inadequate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Very briefly, in the schedule of the description of the various categories of schools, it says what they have to do, to what extent they have to follow the curriculum and that sort of thing. This is a very broad power, much broader than in any other act — the inspector's right to say he wants reports. Subsection (b) simply says that if the inspector says, "I want a report on what has happened to every student, and the student records," he can require that, and the school can't say: "We closed yesterday. You can't have those records." So it's a pretty broad power. It's there for the protection of the students.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to state again for the record our concern about the blanket ability for registration of home-educated students, now called home-schooled students, at any independent school. This is a new initiative of government to require the registration of all children in the province of school age. We have commended that particular requirement. It's our belief that students should be registered in the public schools. If there were to be any registration within independent schools, we would certainly be supportive of that happening only where those independent schools clearly had some more specific accountability to curriculum and assessment processes. This allows registration in any independent school. It's far too broad a classification, in our view, as we move into this method of registration and monitoring the progress of students who are not in the mainstream of school systems. We don't believe this particular broad clause is in the best interests of the intent of registering and monitoring home schooled students.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MS. A. HAGEN: I've had trouble understanding this particular section. It says: "No person shall provide or purport to provide schooling to persons of school age other than...," and it names a whole group of people. There's no definition of schooling in either of the two bills that we've been dealing with. There's a definition of educational program, but schooling is a new word in this particular clause. I wonder if the minister could tell us what this word means, since it's not defined. Although I've made some attempts to have this explained to me, why do we have clause (f) about a person providing schooling in religion, language, social or cultural activities, recreational or athletic activities? Something there isn't clear to me about why that particular classification of school is listed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This section is very deliberate, in that now we have said that all independent schools shall register, and they are required to provide an educational program for students. What

[ Page 8311 ]

we're trying to prevent in this situation is anybody setting up and saying: "We are not an independent school. We are going to work with 35 students and we are going to call it an academic training institute." We're trying to cover it with the broad term "schooling" to prevent people from getting around the requirement to register. We say with certain exceptions. A catechism school in a church — we don't want to get into that. We don't want to get into a gymnastics club or something of that nature. We've tried to say you can't call it schooling under any guise unless you meet the requirements. We have kept the standard that we do in the public school system. At what point do you say it cuts in? We say at ten pupils.

MS. A. HAGEN: In section 4 there's reference to the word "certified." Would the minister quickly explain the term and how the public is going to understand the two terms by which schools are classified, "certified" and "registered."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The term "certified by the province of British Columbia" is a designation that we've put in there. To get that stamp they have to able to say they've met the curriculum, the assessment programs and all the conditions. If a student graduates from grade 12 from one of the schools.... We may not be able to stop anybody from saying he finished school, but we can certainly say under this that they can't say that person is certified unless we're satisfied that the conditions of the educational program are such and such. Any person who contravenes this section commits an offence. That prevents false advertising.

Sections 13 to 22 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will deal with the schedule in its entirety, Mr. Chairman.

I want to put on the record a couple of things regarding the various classifications of schools. First of all, we applaud any moves that the government makes around accountability, consistent with public school system standards for the independent schools

We have some major concerns about the following First of all, that there should be funding for class 3 schools, because the standards established for class 3 schools are so minimal that there seems to us to be no real difference between 3 and 5, except that 3 has applied and 5 hasn't. Secondly, that we continue to fund to the tune of some millions of dollars schools that are not in a broad way accessible to the students of the province, regardless of the fact that they might have a choice. These are the schools whose fees are in excess of the average fees for district schools, and they are schools that, because they have the right to set enrolment, may have policies on enrolment that really are inconsistent with access if those schools are to be publicly funded. We don't have any problem at all with those schools continuing to offer a service for those who can pay for them and do choose to go, but we do have a very major concern that they continue to have millions of dollars of public funding when the accessibility is so very limited, both by enrolment requirements and by virtue of the fees that they charge.

[1:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just very briefly, the schools in category 3 — or group 3, as the member says — are the 10 percent schools: minimum requirements, but minimum funding as well. I have to look at it in terms of what keeps coming up over and over again: that they are publicly funded. They are partially publicly funded, and if you want total accessibility, it's there: where there's 100 percent public funding, there's 100 percent accessibility. The schools that have usually been used as the examples, the ones that charge these large fees and so on, are not getting an increase.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Independent School Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw remarks purported to be attributed to me earlier today.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.