[ Page 13157 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Estimates debate. Mr. Clark –– 13157

Tabling documents –– 13158

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 15).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 13158

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Long

Mr. Jones

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Cull

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1991

The House met at 9:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Point of Privilege

ESTIMATES DEBATE

MR. CLARK: I have three reasons for rising on this occasion, Mr. Speaker: first, to tender material in support of a motion of privilege; second, to outline why, in my view, these materials establish a prima facie case that the member for Chilliwack — the Minister of Finance — deliberately misled this assembly; and three, to indicate that I'm prepared to tender a motion for your consideration should you find that a prima facie case has been made.

My concerns today arise from the result of two events. The first event was the debate on second reading and committee stage of Bill 8, Supply Act (No.1), 1991 that took place in this assembly on May 30 and 31, less than one month ago. The second event was the government's introduction late yesterday evening of Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 2), 1991.

During the debate on May 31, the Minister of Finance made a number of statements in this assembly concerning the need for an interim supply bill that would enable the government to proceed in an orderly fashion to complete the review of its spending estimates. His words were, I suggest, carefully chosen and deliberately put before each and every member of this assembly. More importantly, his words were deliberate in direct response to concerns expressed by members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

They were representations that members of this assembly were expected to believe and rely upon. The words to which I refer begin on page 12307 of Hansard. At this point, the Minister of Finance was opening debate on second reading. Here's what he said on May 30:

"The amounts requested in sections 1, 2 and 3 of this bill include amounts previously approved for fiscal '91-92 by special warrant and which are almost completely expended. An additional two-month supply, as is traditional in this House, is included to allow time for debate and voting upon the estimates."

The following day, May 31, the minister closed debate on second reading with words in much the same vein. Here, in part, is what he said. It is recorded on page 12362 of Hansard.

"What we'd like to do, instead, is move on to the debate of the estimates, because that way we can show the people of the province why this government exercises good fiscal management and tell the people of the province the great things we're doing in terms of our ministries."

Proud words, Mr. Speaker, that offer the members of this assembly firm promise of what was then going to take place. A few moments later the minister moved second reading and repeated that promise: "Mr. Speaker, we're going to move now to do our estimates." As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the minister convinced you of the urgent need to allow Bill 8 to advance two or more stages in one day. As a result, the committee stage deliberations proceeded almost immediately

At the outset of committee stage the first member for Nanaimo put this question to the minister: "I will put the question directly to the minister. Will he please answer all the questions and all the allegations that have been made by us on this side of the House about why indeed we are getting this supply bill? The minister's response, also on page 12363 of Hansard was this:

"Frankly, as I said before, I would love to have the estimates debate start. The way they can start is for us to allow two months of expenditure, to allow that debate to continue."

The member for Nanaimo questioned the minister further.

"My question, then, to the minister is: will you give us the assurance...we will have a full estimates debate, that we won't perhaps pull the plug and adjourn this House, and therefore not have an opportunity to debate the estimates? Would the minister like to allay our fears and answer that question?"

Hansard, at page 12364, records the minister's complete answer as follows:

"Last year we had four months for estimates debate. If that side of the House feels that they only need one month, I suggest they aren't doing their job. I tell you, this budget is good enough to have debate for another six months. This budget should have two months of debate. These estimates in this budget require that ministers responsible stand up and tell the story. For him to suggest that only one month is suitable, Mr. Chairman, is totally inappropriate. We want to get into the estimates; we want to deal with those, and we need two months to deal with those."

The opposition House Leader also asked some questions. The minister's response was:

"I hope that you're going to spend two months on intensive debate of these estimates, because we're going to tell you why this government deserves to be re-elected, because of its.... That's the story we're going to tell."

Then when I asked for further assurances from the Minister of Finance that we would have a full estimates debate, he said:

"We will start the debate on the estimates next week, and we will ensure that there is sufficient money to enable us to debate those estimates in a democratic and extensive way. That is why we have two months of expenditure and two months for what has already gone in terms of the time-frame at this point in time."

Finally, in answer to the second member for Victoria, the minister made this statement, recorded on page 12367 of Hansard:

"As I said before, we hope that we start into our estimates debate next week and complete it, and in our opinion, two months of funding is necessary for us to do that."

Taken together, Mr. Speaker, the minister's words convey and were meant to convey the distinct and unmistakable impression that two months of interim supply was needed because the next two months would be devoted to completing the estimates debate.

[ Page 13158 ]

Late last night the government House Leader introduced a second interim supply bill and made clear that any further debate on the estimates would be severely curtailed, if not completely denied. I can only assume that the Minister of Finance was party to and supported that decision. We have certainly not heard his voice in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister has done is something that is more than political gamesmanship and more than partisan strategy. I cannot say what he has done.... Frankly, he stood up in this House and gave an assurance that all the estimates would be debated. That's why they brought in an interim supply bill for two months' supply. That assurance given by the Minister of Finance has now been broken by the government's own intention to adjourn the debate and to leave this place without having passed the estimates. I'm prepared to move a motion if it's required.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just on a point of clarification for the Chair, the member said that last night the government House Leader brought in another interim supply bill. I wish to correct him. The bill we brought in last night was not an interim supply bill; it's a supply bill for the entire fiscal year, covering three ministries.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver East wishes to....

MR. CLARK: Just to assist the Chair, I would advise that that is simply factually incorrect. In fact, section 1(2)....

MR. SPEAKER: This is not part of the matter of privilege. The Chair is quite capable of interpreting what this bill is.

MR. CLARK: I'll leave it in your capable hands, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When you leave it in my capable hands, you rest assured that I have some expert opinions with which to conduct my business.

On the matter that you bring forward as a matter of privilege, it's tradition that matters of privilege are brought forward with the member from whom the privilege is claimed being in the chamber, and normally then we would allow the member to respond. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance is not currently in the chamber, I will reserve on this particular matter until such time as he has had an opportunity to address it in the House and then will bring a decision forthwith.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the year ended March 31, 1990.

On behalf of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, Hon. S. Hagen tabled the financial statements and auditor's reports of the British Columbia Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority and the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ending March 31, 1991.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 15.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: To start off, I wonder whether we could just have the minister explain the purpose of this amendment to the British Columbia Railway Act.

HON. MR. FRASER: Certainly. Let me do it by suggesting to the members that sections 1 to 6 deal with closely related amendments to re-enact until July 1992 provisions of the Assessment Act that were enforced prior to July 1990. These measures are consistent with the 1987 amendments, setting out a precise basis for the assessment of major industrial property in the 1989 amendments and for assessment of cables, pipelines and railway tracks. They replace the 1990 provisions, which, had they remained in place, would have sharply increased railway property taxes in some areas and created tax offsets in others.

[9:15]

MR. CLARK: Can the minister explain the change dealing with assessments with respect to railway rights-of-way in this House a couple of years ago? It had profound consequences for municipalities, because they used to allow the collection of property taxes on a linear foot. Effectively that shifted the burden of taxes, or it made it more equitable in terms of railway taxes between districts where railway lines ran through. I wonder whether this amendment affects the amendments we saw in this House about a year ago.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there has been some disagreement between municipalities and railway companies with respect to assessments. My understanding of it is simply that in areas where you had a switching yard, for example, part of the yard and some of the property along rail lines were taken out of the Railway Act. To help railway companies and municipalities solve their differences of opinion, we're proposing that this take place until 1992.

MR. SIHOTA: Would the effect of this, then, be to make more accurate assessments of land, or would it make it easier to classify land for different assessment rates? I'm just not sure exactly what is intended here.

[ Page 13159 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: The idea of these amendments is to make a clearer definition of what is right-of-way and what is not.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you saying that land that is not right-of-way would be subject to a different level of assessment than land that is?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's basically the idea.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not quite sure, then, why the amendment is required. Could the minister explain what problem triggered it? What difficulty were you having with the current regime that warranted this requirement?

HON. MR. FRASER: Basically, Mr. Chairman, there was a problem between the railway companies and municipalities about what was right-of-way, and if it wasn't right-of-way, what rate of taxation could be applied. There are some differentials between municipalities. This amendment is to ensure that municipalities and railways can come to some agreement on what is actually the railway right-of-way and what rate of taxation will apply. It's meant to smooth out the procedures involved.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister mentioned municipalities. Could the minister indicate to us which municipalities made requests for this change? Was it done in consultation? Was the UBCM involved? Was there a process behind this change? I know that often in these issues there are years of process. This one doesn't look like there were years at all. It looks like a correction. Perhaps the minister can articulate the consultation process that went behind this change.

HON. MR. FRASER: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the UBCM actually requested this amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister indicate to us what the UBCM request was? What problems arose that brought this request to the House?

HON. MR. FRASER: The basic issue of the UBCM was that they were opposed to sharp decreases or increases in assessments and wanted the government to bring in this act so they could have a smoother transition into new assessment procedures.

MR. BLENCOE: That's interesting, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister can't answer this, but that situation is not just to deal with railways. Was this request — a site-specific request about railway right-of-way and assessment — part of a package? Were there other recommendations from UBCM, and if so, why are we only seeing the section that deals with the right-of-way for railways?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm advised that this is a one-time request from their point of view.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understand it, the appropriate provisions of the Assessment Act seek to remedy a number of amendments made to the Assessment Act in 1988, if memory serves me right. It seems to me that this year's modifications that we see here in this legislation governing railway rights-of-way are another effort — I believe there have been a series of changes to this legislation — to tinker with the act in order to ensure some stability within the assessment system. What I take issue with is that the government seems to be making a variety of changes to the provisions of the Assessment Act — a change here and a change there — without taking a look at the overall picture, particularly as it relates to industrial assessments. I'd like to know from the minister why the province is having so much difficulty dealing with industrial assessments, because that's what seems to be happening. This section is just another reflection of that problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a broader issue. This particular question is the government's response to a direct request.

MR. SIHOTA: Surely the minister would agree that it would be better to take a look at and rationalize the whole system. The minister says it's from the UBCM; let's go a bit further than that. Is it not true that this legislation is before the House largely because of challenges to the legislation which forced the UBCM to make the request that it did? Is it as a consequence of challenges that brings this matter before the House?

HON. MR. FRASER: The essence of it is that the UBCM wanted some time to work out some of the problems they had. They made a request to the government for time out — which is what this accomplishes — and we've responded. A larger question with respect to municipal tax issues might properly be addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture at some other time.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fair enough, but we're not going to get a chance to deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You are here, Mr. Minister, to quarterback the legislation; therefore you have to explain. Perhaps you can tell us what challenges to the legislation prompted this amendment?

HON. MR. FRASER: The issue is what I said before. Municipalities are not looking for sharp differences in taxation. They didn't want to look for sharp increases or decreases; they simply wanted time out to get everything together. It's in direct response to a request from the UBCM, and the government has responded in order to make life somewhat simpler for municipalities which have railways going through them.

MR. MILLER: Prince Rupert is a fine little community with a lot of railways running through it. In fact, that's been a bit of a problem for our community over the years, as I think it has been in other parts of this province where, because of land granted to them many years ago, the railways are able to exert considerable

[ Page 13160 ]

influence over how the community develops. Maybe it seemed okay in very large places such as Vancouver, which has a large council that is able to deal with those matters. But we've had our share of frustrations in trying to come to grips or, actually, in trying to get the railway to come to terms with the desire of the community in terms of planning.

We have a spectacular community with a beautiful harbour. Over the years we've tried to move some of the development in the community down onto the waterfront. We think it's attractive enough and would add immeasurably to the community. But we've been very frustrated over the years in dealing with the railway. I assume the land that we are talking about would be right-of-way. That's why I rise to speak on this section — so that I am clear in understanding the intent.

It's pretty clear that there was a previous attempt to deal with this issue by previous amendments to the Assessment Act. Now we're faced with another amendment which basically says we're going to repeal these previous amendments on January 1, 1992, so clearly something didn't work in the whole process. When you look at the Assessment Act, it lists under section 27 the criteria for evaluation: "The actual value of the following shall be determined using rates prescribed by the commissioner." Then it goes on to list in a number of sections the items that would be assessed as to their actual value: the pole lines, metallic or fibre optic cables, towers, poles, wires, transformers, conduits, mains of a telecommunications, trolley coach, bus or electrical power corporation, but not including substations.

It's a fairly complete section in terms of describing the various items subject to evaluation. Under (e) it says "the right-of-way for track referred to in paragraph (b), which is "the track in place of a railway corporation, whether the track is on a public highway or on a privately owned right-of-way." Clearly the Assessment Authority had the authority to put a value on that right-of-way. The subsection of the amendment that we're dealing with seems to exclude certain portions of that right-of-way, and I'm wondering how the distinction will be made by the Assessment Authority in separating those other parcels. The criteria aren't named, and there's another section that we could quiz the minister on with respect to the criteria, and we will. But how are they going to separate out those parcels and make the determination as to a higher and better use than for right-of-way?

[9:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: The scope of the section seemed to expand significantly under the debate of the member opposite. As I look at the city of Prince Rupert, you have one of the longest sitting mayors in the history of Canada, so surely somebody must agree with him.

This section deals strictly with railways. It was done at the direct request of the UBCM, and it would seem to me to be reasonable to stay with the section at hand. But there's lots of time for questions later, and we will let the Chair rule on what questions you might want me to answer. I will do the very best I can.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the minister.... I made a fairly long statement and then posed a question, and the minister stood up and basically said he would do the best he could. I would have preferred that he answer my question. I would prefer to sit down and give him another opportunity, but I did ask a question pertaining specifically to the section we're dealing with, and I would appreciate.... I think it's a serious issue that we have to come to grips with.

The minister brought up the mayor of Prince Rupert, who I have admired for many years as one of the foremost politicians in this province. He has been mayor for over 30 years. I sat with that mayor on the council. I learned a lot from his honour Mayor Lester. I ran against him once, and it proved to be one of the most educational experiences of my life. I learned a lot about politics from Mayor Lester, and I also learned that one has to be persistent in pursuing issues. Mayor Lester has a dogged persistence in terms of issues that are important to his community.

This assessment change has some impact on my community, and I'm sure the mayor would want me to quiz the minister as closely as possible as to its possible impact on Prince Rupert. Having said that, I would refer the minister to my previous question.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the section makes it easy for the councils in B.C. and the railways to deal with assessments as they stand. It simply gives people a period of time in which to work out a procedure. It gives them a time-out to properly get things in place so the transition will be smooth. It seems to be quite a reasonable request, and it has been granted.

MR. MILLER: It may indeed be reasonable, but we're trying to get to the heart of the issue. I posed a question with respect to how we are going to separate those classes of properties. I'm not an expert in the matters of railways and property assessment, but it appears to open the door for land within a right-of-way to be assessed at a higher value — presumably a higher value — than other land within that right-of way. It appears to suggest that there are different classes of property within a railway right-of-way.

I suspect that this is more of a problem in small communities, but I have talked about the difficulty that small communities have had in dealing with the railway. They have had a long history where they were not required to be cooperative, and it's been a very difficult task trying to get them to sit down and deal straight up with some of these issues.

The minister says that it allows them to work out a procedure. But what's the role of the ministry in that? If they resist the assessment authority in the municipalities, how is that going to be dealt with if there's no agreement? I don't anticipate that the railways are going to be meek and mild when it comes to this question, particularly if the result of the amendment is

[ Page 13161 ]

that they would pay a higher tax. It's one thing to say it allows them to work out a procedure, but let's hear some details about how that procedure is going to be worked out. Is it a formal process? What role has the ministry got? This is an important issue for small communities, and the minister really should elaborate somewhat on this section.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the assessments until the end of 1992 will be done the way they're done now. After 1992, they'll be done in accordance with the changes. Government can impose regulations with respect to changes. Presumably everybody wants a chance to work at making a smooth transition from the old to the new. This gives the municipalities the breathing space they requested so they can work it out. The government agreed. It seemed to make some sense.

MR. MILLER: Having previously tried to deal with this, Mr. Chairman, it is becoming apparent that there was an inability to come to grips with the issue — hence the amendment that we're dealing with now which sets off to a future date the implementation of the repeal of the previous limit on the assessment commissioner's power.

Were there some difficulties...? You say between now and that 1992 date we have this time to work out this smooth transition. But we've had some time already, and clearly it hasn't been smooth; otherwise, you wouldn't be asking for an extension. So what kind of problems have caused you to extend the time-frame before that original amendment comes into force? Clearly there have been problems.

HON. MR. FRASER: With respect to the regulatory framework, that will be worked out on a consultative basis, I'm advised. Court decisions have caused some problems with respect to what is right-of-way. That has made life difficult for both parties, obviously. They want time to consult and work out a framework, and they want to do it in the time period requested. So that was why it was granted.

MR. MILLER: The court decisions then.... There has been some resistance from some of the parties. The minister didn't name which of the parties that could be involved in this issue took the matter to court and offered that resistance. Could you advise the committee who did that?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll try to get some answers for you on that specific question if you wish.

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm overwhelmed by the generosity of the minister, who stood in his place and said he would "try to get some answers" for me. I am somewhat puzzled, given the fact that the government has indicated that they intend to close this place down to stifle the opposition from doing its job. They bring a bill in that clearly they want. They think it's important. They've already imposed a time-limit, and the minister stands and generously offers to "try to get some answers."

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour displays his....

MR. PERRY: Childishness.

MR. MILLER: Well, I don't know; I suppose it's a lack of understanding about our purpose in this place. It's not to wield the club of power over the opposition, as this government is doing; it's to do the people's business.

I really would like to know from the minister which railway resisted the implementation of the previous amendment. What specific court case was it? I can perhaps understand that they would resist, because it appears that it's going to cost them more money. Who took which case to court, and what were the results?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am advised that it was CN that was opposed. What was happening was simply that when you changed the definition of right-of-way, taxes went down, mill rates went up and taxes went up. There was a dispute between railways and municipalities. I believe Vancouver was involved. So a mechanism, a time-limit, was required to have the framework put in place, to have agreements in place between railways and municipalities, so they could sort some of those things out without having taxes going up or down sharply and artificially changing the amount of money that either companies would pay or municipalities would collect. A process was put in place to try to enable them to come to some agreement about how these things would be done.

MR. MILLER: So it appears that the potential for a rapid fluctuation in tax rates was part of the problem — I would assume, from the railway's side.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Yes, but from the railway's side it would be an objection to an increase, I would presume, and from the municipality's side it would be the lack of certainty over the tax flow — in other words, if I can draw a parallel, the same problem that resulted....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for your assistance in perhaps having some order in the corner here? I wouldn't want the minister not to be able to hear every word that I speak. It is rather loud in the corner. I've now been thrown off my train of thought.

To return, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there might be some members in the corner on the Socred side who might want to catch a train, or perhaps hop into a donated car and drive on down the road over an overpass that took a year longer than it

[ Page 13162 ]

should have to be built because of some labour difficulties?

To return, the difficulty for the railways was the increased assessment, presumably, and for the municipalities it was the lack of certainty with respect to their tax flow.

I'll sit down and take my place. He's going to offer an explanation that's contrary to what I'm suggesting.

HON. MR. FRASER: What was happening was that a change in the definition of right-of-way caused taxes to go down. The cities' response was to change the rate, bringing taxes back up. Obviously there's some disagreement between who pays and who collects. In order to have time to put a framework into place, to solve some of the problems of assessments and what is a right-of-way and all those things, the UBCM has said: "Let us do it, not just one place at a time; let's do it all. Let's go UBCM. Give us a little more time to work it out." We said that sounded reasonable; hence the amendment giving them time off, a break, before new changes come in. We'll build a framework of consensus to get the whole province on-side at one time and bring it in when it is perceived that there has been enough time to get all this work done.

[9:45]

MR. MILLER: I don't want to belabour the point, so I'll simply pose one more question and then allow the minister to answer it. Then perhaps my colleagues will want to ask questions as well.

I'm a bit puzzled. If the proposed change is to allow for the separation of parcels within what is classed as right-of-way, to allow those parcels to be taken out and assessed because they have a higher value, then I'm at a loss to understand why the taxes went down. It seems to me that the reverse would be true: that the municipality would be attempting.... In a particular example where a railway wanted to maintain the classification of right-of-way, they might make the argument that that land could be used for some commercial purpose; it's not integral to the right-of-way requirements of the railway; it does have a higher value, in our opinion, and therefore we're going to assess it at that higher value.

The impact of the section would appear to be to increase the tax payable by the railway. I would think that municipalities would be endeavouring to do exactly what I said. The minister seemed to suggest that the reverse was true. That leaves me somewhat puzzled. Perhaps the minister could explain.

HON. MR. FRASER: When you move into assessment for right-of-way, the rate goes down, so taxes go down. The cities raised the rate and taxes went back up. This was causing sharp fluctuations in either payments or collections, to the dismay of the railway companies and the municipalities involved. In an effort to make sure that some stability could be brought to the issue, there was a request from the UBCM for a provincewide opportunity to reassess what's a right-of-way, what the assessment rates ought to be, and all of those things, put a framework into place and have some consensus between the parties on the framework so that there wouldn't be sharp increases or decreases either to the payee or the payer. They asked for a time break here so they could work it out, and that's what's being put in place with this amendment.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to enter this debate, but I'm puzzled at the debate put forward in this House by the Forests critic of the opposition. I have a question to ask of the Attorney-General, but first I've got to say that I'm really astonished that the member for Prince Rupert would side with the big railways. Of course, it's understandable; as Forests critic, he's been siding with the large forest companies for as long as I've listened to him in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the question I have for the Attorney-General is: are these six sections designed to ensure the people of British Columbia that they get their fair share of taxes out of the large railways?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The government side is getting a little anxious to cut and run from this Legislature. We have 17 more estimates we would like to do, but we are unfortunately not going to be given that opportunity. We are going to do our business until this government decides to leave this chamber and abandon the people's business.

I want to first say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm quite surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in the House today, quite frankly. He's a new minister. I would have hoped he would be here to personally show us that he's in charge of this area. It's a very important section.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order. I didn't know we were on the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I thought we were dealing with this bill this morning, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with section 1, which has been reasonably well canvassed up to this point, but perhaps the hon. second member for Victoria has something new to add.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I do have something new to add, Mr. Chairman, because in the explanatory notes it says: "Assessment Act, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture." I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we do have a Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. I would expect that minister to be in the House. Where is he? Is he cutting and running too, back to his riding, to make sure he's going to be okay? I would expect that minister to be here. I challenge that minister to come in this House, Mr. Chairman, and defend his estimates.

Interjections.

[ Page 13163 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Such indignation so early in the day!

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the debate just put forward by the second member for Victoria is irrelevant to Bill 7, and I think you should bring him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Omineca is absolutely right, and I will ask the second member for Victoria to speak to section 1 of Bill 15.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will speak to section 1. This is an important bill. I've been told by the minister today that it was brought forth by the UBCM. The UBCM represents all local government. I would fully expect a new minister, who is supposedly interested in municipal affairs, to be here to listen to the debate on something that is impacting on his ministry. Where is that minister? Is he not here? It's incredible. So I will leave it there. I hope he has heard and he'll be here to talk to some of the sections that are in this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just like Peter Thomas, yes.

MR. MILLER: The minister had not responded to my questions. I had asked, I thought, some serious questions with respect to how this section would apply. I had already outlined.... I'm dismayed and somewhat appalled that the member for Omineca, who never says anything in this chamber except from his chair — now that he has been gagged and has paid that high price for returning to the Socred fold — no longer stands up for the members up north and the issues up north. We don't hear from him in this House. He didn't even know that we're dealing with Bill 15, not Bill 7. So I resent that kind of interference in this good exchange that I've had with the minister.

I still think there are some issues with respect to.... This is my last question on this section. I'm still not clear if the intent of the bill is to separate out parcels with a higher value; thus, presumably, that higher value would result in additional tax revenue. I understand the waterbed effect that can take place when assessed values go down and rates can be raised to compensate for that. I used to be an alderman. But it appears to me to be the opposite of what the minister has said, and I'm still somewhat baffled.

I expect that because we're dealing with a minister who is not responsible for the section, that might be one of the reasons why we're not getting that kind of explanation. Having said that, if the minister wants to elaborate on it, fair enough. If not, it may be a piece of legislation that we will have to fix when we're on that side of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to confirm that there is a very capable Minister of Municipal Affairs on the government side of the House. Secondly, this entire part of the bill — sections 1 to 6 — is actually dealing with taxation fairness, which I think we're all in favour of. Certainly as a member of the government who is interested in cooperating with the UBCM, I propose that we accept these.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: I just wonder if the minister can link this to the whole question of what we're debating this morning and how it fits in to the issue of the railway situation. Or is it reflecting something else?

HON. MR. FRASER: This section provides for the regulatory powers of the act.

MR. LOVICK: I understand that this section requires the assessment commissioner to base rates for rights-of-way on criteria that are set by the cabinet. Can the Attorney-General inform us whether that is a change from the status quo? In other words, was that power vested in somebody else's hands, and it is now done by order-in-council or by the L-G?

HON. MR. FRASER: Prior to this, I am advised, there was no limit on the authority of the assessment officer.

MR. LOVICK: So the suggestion then is that if it goes to cabinet, i.e. the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, this will have the effect of putting a limit on the rights of the assessment commissioner? That seems like a rather perverse and circuitous way to achieve that end.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's correct.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LOVICK: Section 3 substitutes a new definition of what right-of-way does not include, and a former subsection 27(l)(d) is no longer included, which referred to the track in place of a railway corporation, whether the track was on a public highway or on a privately owned right-of-way. I'm wondering if we could get some explanation of this change. I don't understand the need for the new section.

HON. MR. FRASER: The changes to this are designed so that the definition of things like telephones, highway transmission lines and pipelines are not affected by this. So they're trying to separate those items from each other.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. LOVICK: Section 5 again amends section 27 by adding a clause that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to define railway right-of-way. Is that the

[ Page 13164 ]

same explanation as was given for the change to section 2?

HON. MR. FRASER: This power was in the legislation which is being repealed.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. LOVICK: This is a brand-new one. We're no longer on the Assessment Act, and we want to take a little time to look at this one. We understand that the purpose of section 8 is twofold. This measure does two things: it increases the borrowing power of the Ferry Corporation from $250 million to $460 million. That's hardly what we normally refer to as a housekeeping measure, and one would prefer that that kind of measure would come before this chamber so we could have a discussion about the Ferry Corporation's plans, and in short, so that we could have a full-scale estimates debate with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is responsible for ferries. That's just in passing, however.

The other major change envisaged by this particular section is that it changes the method of calculation. It seems to substitute some accounting jargon for what used to look more like straightforward plain English. What we're seeing here is that it scraps a whole large section of the existing Ferry Corporation Act called "Maximum Borrowing Power," and replaces it with the new category as listed here, which is called "Limit of Outstanding Debt."

The obvious question one has to pose in all of this is why this section. There are two questions. One is: why the increase in the borrowing power, which I know there are answers to, and I want to pursue that a little bit with the Attorney-General filling in for the minister, The second is: why the change in method of calculation? We want to pursue both of those, and it's worth noting that the government gave no reason for introducing this bill.

Indeed, when we called B.C. Ferries, they weren't aware — the public relations department of the corporation, at least — that the bill had come down. They didn't know it was before us. So we wonder why this bill was brought in, and in general terms I would pose that question to start with. Can the Attorney-General give us some answers?

[10:00]

HON. MR. FRASER: Let me begin by saying that the raising of the limit is done so that the capital plan of the B.C. Ferry Corporation can be completed: the building of the two new superferries and the two small ferries, for example.

Secondly, with respect to the definitions, I'm advised they are in keeping with current accounting practices. Actually what is intended is to define an actual liability at any point in time.

MR. LOVICK: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I'm struggling with shifting some paper. I'm contemplating introducing an amendment to this particular section, so I'm trying to listen and review notes as I go, so please bear with me if I'm not as quick in my responses as would like to be.

The argument about the borrowing power under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991.... What we're normally dealing with, as I said a moment ago, was housekeeping measures. Isn't it the case that in the normal course of the B.C. Ferry Corporation's activity they wouldn't be asking for an extra huge increase in borrowing power while we're still in the same budget year? It isn't as if we are suddenly introducing new projects we had never heard of before? If indeed we are talking about the superferry, it's been on the drawing board for a while. The obvious question is: why now? What happened that they didn't come and get this kind of approval before. This is a huge amount of money: $250 million to $460 million. Why now?

HON. MR. FRASER: What this bill will really accomplish.... Of course, we did know that the program was underway, because some of the smaller ferries have even been christened as recently as a week ago this coming Friday. But the fact is that this allows the corporation to enter into contracts with the assurance that the money will be available when it's required. Now seems to be the time to do it rather than yesterday.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: The minister mentioned a moment ago that the increased borrowing power — money, in effect — was there to assist in the construction of the superferry and also the two smaller ferries. Can we confirm if that's the case and remind us precisely which ones we are talking about? I think I know.

HON. MR. FRASER: I used the superferries as an example. There are other things in mind, of course. You've got docking facilities and capital programs of a like nature that we want to talk about. One of the reasons you want capital is that if you want big ferries, you want to make sure you've got terminals that will handle the ferries and upgrade the capital facilities. I used the ferries as an example: they're part of the capital program.

MR. LOVICK: In short, what the Attorney-General is telling me is that it's for capital needs of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and it's not possible to earmark precisely where these moneys will be spent. Is that the case?

HON. MR. FRASER: I probably couldn't separate concrete from pilings or engines from hulls, but certainly we can get down to areas like Swartz Bay, Tsawwassen, the two big ferries, the two small ferries and that kind of thing, which is pretty much the case.

MR. LOVICK: One of the concerns we have in trying to determine what this money is going to be used for is

[ Page 13165 ]

that there have been various promises — and I can use that word correctly and fairly — that money is in the bag for other ferry projects we hadn't thought of before. For instance, we've heard talk about the Powell River ferry and that that money is already there and that the work will begin. We wonder whether that is the case. I'm wondering if the Attorney can confirm — I see he has some assistance here from staff — whether there is any money earmarked in this additional borrowing power, this extra $200 million-plus we're talking about, allocated for that particular project. Or is it the case, as you said a moment ago, that this is simply for a superferry and attendant public works that have to be built to accommodate that?

HON. MR. FRASER: If I understood your question, you're asking me whether it had to do with superferries, two small ferries and some dock facilities for the ferries. If you're asking me if that's what the money's for, I'm advised the answer is yes.

MR. LOVICK: The Attorney is telling me all of it.... I asked the question because I want to make the case. If that is the fact, then it is not true that there is money in the budget, B.C. Ferries' current capital funding allotments, to enable them to proceed with work on the Powell River ferry. Is that the case?

HON. MR. FRASER: The funding required for that move would be in a different fiscal year.

MR. LOVICK: That fiscal year could be 1997, as my colleague reminds me. The Attorney says that's right. The reason I ask....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Another year, exactly.

I ask because I believe your colleague from across the way and across the water, the MLA for Mackenzie, has gone on record as saying that the funding is in place to start work on the project this year. One obviously has to say that if in fact we're introducing this much new capital to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and it isn't in this year, what then are the statements by the member for Mackenzie based on?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I may not be in order by making reference to another member of the chamber, but given that we're talking about the capital expansion plans of the Ferry Corporation, and given that that member down the way sits on the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation and has allegedly made statements about the fact that this new project is going ahead this year and is already on the way, I think my question is in order.

I wonder if the Attorney can confirm what he just said, that it is not in fact on the way, and rather it's down the way and it could be ten years from now,

HON. MR. FRASER: I obviously can't comment on comments made by a colleague that I haven't heard. Clearly the move that I understand to be committed.... The funds aren't required this year, so they'll be required in another year and will be granted when that need is there.

MR. LONG: I guess the opposition critic, the first member for Nanaimo, should understand that enabling Ferries to borrow money to help the ferry system here in British Columbia is very necessary. It's the biggest single link of transportation we have. For him to question that here today is ridiculous, especially when Nanaimo depends on ferries very clearly. They are in the market down the road to have a new terminal so they can free up their downtown core. He hasn't brought that up. They're going to be pouring a lot of money in there.

He mentioned recently on this particular issue that the Powell River ferry is going into service in the first part of July. It is already being done, and a lot of money has been spent on that, so I think it's necessary that the opposition knows the fact that money has to be spent on ferries. It has to be kept up and it can't be taken away.

He mentioned the Comox ferry relocation in Powell River — which the opposition are dead against. Some of that money is earmarked for a dock in Powell River, so when you question these expenditures and this expansion of equipment....

Interjection.

MR. LONG: It's being looked at right now. We're looking at a whole ferry expansion. I think the member should take a look at it. It's a great program, B.C. Ferries is doing a good job and this government is going right along with them.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to suggest that my friend from Mackenzie really ought to go and talk to the government House Leader and say that he wants to have an estimates debate on transportation, highways and B.C. ferries. Believe me, so do we.

I would remind the member that we are talking about one section of a miscellaneous statutes bill, and I'm sorry that's all we can talk about. I'm also sorry to inform the member that the money ain't there. I don't know what you're going to tell the good burghers of Powell River, because what you've been telling them so far doesn't jibe with what's in this — unless you have in place another entire system of funding which is a deep, dark secret, well kept from the rest of us mere mortals. We shall see what will happen.

We on this side of the House, of course, have no difficulty with the fact that the Ferry Corporation requires capital funding. We support the borrowing authority embraced in this measure, but we do so with some reservations. We do so because what we are seeing here is yet again an illustration of the plain fact that the corporation does not seem to be functioning on the basis of any longer-term planning or clear model of what it wants to do and what its direction ought to be. Rather it's a knee-jerk reaction — a response to demands cobbled together at the last minute.

As we know, the traffic pattern in B.C. Ferries has gone up in a very significant, steeply-rising curve in

[ Page 13166 ]

the last ten or more years. The building curve, however, is just about a flat line. We have not kept up with the capital requirements of the corporation — capital in terms of physical capital.

I guess it's unfair to pillory him, because he isn't the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I'm surprised that the Attorney, in defending this measure, hasn't given us the usual lines we get from the corporation about why this is such an important project and why this money needs to be spent. I suspect that one of the reasons is that the words tend to ring hollow, because this government is terribly vulnerable when it talks about its macroeconomic plans and economic development plans. After all, this is the selfsame government that didn't stand up at all for the west coast shipbuilding industry in its discussions with the federal government. It's fair, I think again to say, that the government, through the corporation, was caught asleep at the throttle when it came to dealing with alternate technologies. Look at that rather wretched tale in terms of the Gibsons and Bowen Island–Vancouver ferry operation, when we had the suggestion that this....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: It has everything to do with this bill, because you're talking about asking us to approve a significant capital funding increase, and we're telling you what has happened here — to the minister, who I hope is listening, in answer to his own question. We're saying that the government apparently doesn't know what it intends to do. Instead what we get is this constant ad hockery and constant last-minute infusion of capital when government's planning has clearly let it down.

[10:15]

The alternative technologies was a good example of that. Nobody argued against the notion of having that kind of fast ferry, passenger-only service to the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, beyond just that route. What happened, as we know, is that the government was terribly embarrassed, because they managed to have a deal going with one of the five or six proposers, and we then discover that the proposer didn't have a boat and didn't have the money and docking facilities. At the eleventh hour the government, very embarrassed, had to pull the plug on the contract.

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, that is symptomatic of the kinds of difficulties the government has been involved in. What we have talked about for a long time is the need for some kind of more rational longer-term plan with regard to the expansion needs of B.C. Ferries. It's curious to note that a former Minister of Highways, who now occupies the Speaker's chair.... I had a discussion on this a couple of years ago, and we agreed entirely on the possibility of using Crown corporations as a macroeconomic tool. We can smooth out the peaks and valleys and the ebbs and flows of a normal business cycle, and we can do something about aiding the shipbuilding industry, as well as satisfying our transportation needs, by using the purchasing and spending power of the B.C. Ferry Corporation in an intelligent, well-planned, rational way.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, it hasn't already happened. Members opposite, Mr. Chairman, are suggesting that because we're spending a bunch of money now, that is somehow a replacement for some kind of macroeconomic planning. The reality is it isn't.

I'll give you an example of how it isn't. It wasn't very long ago that we announced a $34 million expansion of the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal. Guess what? After a couple of questions from this side of the House, a couple of inquiries about the advisability of doing so, within a matter of less than two months the decision was scrapped. Suddenly a $34 million capital project was no longer necessary, we were told. It wasn't part of the planning.

I'll give you another example, Mr. Chairman, from the same ministry — the folks who not very long ago were talking with some pride about the Freedom to Move transportation initiative. That initiative above all else, we were told, was based on two things: long-term planning and consultation with the public. Long-term planning, we were told, had indeed been done, and everything was under control. The government knew which directions it wanted to move in. Consultation with the public was manifest in a glossy pamphlet, published by the thousands, talking about the public consultation process.

But you know what, Mr. Chairman? A very short time ago, the government decided to scrap the lower end of the Vancouver Island highway project, and did so for — hold onto your hat, Mr. Chairman — two reasons: (1) they needed to consult with the public; and (2) they wanted to establish a regional transportation plan. What happened to the transportation plan they've been bragging about for the previous two years, and what happened to the public consultation program they had said was in place?

Those few examples will demonstrate why we are skeptical about this government's claims about planning and knowing which direction it wants to move in with capital expansion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

We're wondering — and here is a question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman — whether we can get any assurances from the minister that the increase in capital borrowing provided for in this particular section of the miscellaneous statute could be used for cost overruns on the building of the first superferry — rather than being used for all those other things that were suggested by the Attorney-General. Can we get any assurances that this won't be used simply to cover cost overruns on the superferry?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm more than delighted to respond to some of the rather wild accusations of the member opposite. He talks about a lack of planning, a lack of commitment to the shipbuilding industry and a lack of effort to make the system work. Let me make it very clear that my colleague the Minister of Education was the first

[ Page 13167 ]

minister of the government ever to take some 20 unions to Ottawa and to have with them several accompanying leaders meeting the ministers in Ottawa to try to get the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia back on its feet.

Let me remind the member that it was this government that has committed ferry construction for ferries in British Columbia, the launching of one which took place last Friday, and the member for Mackenzie was there.

Let me suggest to you that the Horseshoe Bay terminal hold was put in place because of the new mid-Island ferry connection between Tsawwassen and Nanaimo. Let me remind you that it was the great government of Social Credit that brought in the Ferry Corporation in the first place, and that it was the opposition who were complaining about things like the Deas Island tunnel, which at that time they called the "tunnel to nowhere" and which you now find going to capacity because people want to go to the B.C. Ferries.

The money we're talking about today, of course, fills a commitment from an '89 capital budget for B.C. Ferries which is taken up by some increases in fares and from subsidies from general revenues. So, Mr. Chairman, there is no lack of commitment on this side of the House for this government to the people of B.C. with respect to the ferries.

There is no lack of commitment from the member for Mackenzie, who sits on the board and is doing a great job on behalf of the people not only in that area but in the rest of the province. There is no lack of commitment from the now Minister of Education, who was then Economic Development, to make sure that the transportation system in British Columbia works, and quite frankly, I'm sure that it will work very well.

MR. LOVICK: Tell the people in Courtenay.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think in fact the merchants in Courtenay will be delighted to find that they will get some shoppers from Powell River, and the people in Powell River will be happy to have more families living there and paying taxes. I think it will work very well. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that all this will meet with the approval of at least the members of the public.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to make long speeches about this stuff; that's certainly not the purpose of committee stage in miscellaneous statutes. What I do want to do is pose a couple of questions.

Just in passing, let me say that when the Minister of Education, the member from Comox.... Is that the name of the riding?

HON. S. HAGEN: Powell River.

MR. LOVICK: No, the one across the way. Don't point the finger at the member from Powell River. We're talking about you, Mr. Minister, saying that your constituents love you. I can tell you that a lot of your constituents don't love you. They wonder where you were when the ferry terminal and the livelihoods of all those people living on Vancouver Island in your constituency were holus-bolus tossed away to the member across the way to save his political backside. But I don't want to engage in that kind of partisan bashing, so instead I am just going to pose a direct question or two to the minister.

Can the Attorney-General advise us if any of the increased debt that this bill envisages and allows for will be for the purchase of passenger-only ferries by B.C. Ferries? I ask the question because with the demise of the Island Development Group, and the proposal of Dr. Vinnels and his colleagues for the Gibsons link, some other fast-ferry advocates in the industry are concerned that perhaps B.C. Ferries has the intention of coming forward with a passenger-only ferry proposal of its own. Certainly we're hearing that from a number of people in industry. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can advise us whether any of the money in this bill might in fact find its way into that kind of ferry funding.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll answer two questions, Mr. Chairman. One was a previous question that I overlooked about overruns or possible overruns or budgeted overruns. There are none. The big ferry is on budget.

Secondly, we expect the fast ferries.... I just happen to be an advocate of fast passenger ferries. My particular choice in this respect is in fact hydrofoils because of the low wave action they leave. But there are no plans to do that at the moment, although it could be part of a future plan.

MR. LOVICK: The other question I have for the Attorney-General is that the increased borrowing capacity assigned to B.C. Ferry Corporation, on the face of it, ought to be included in our deficit or debt calculations. This question is probably more properly addressed to somebody like the Minister of Finance, but I'm sure the Attorney-General will give yeoman's service and try and answer. Is that the case? How will we record this in terms of the total public accounting? Is this going to be an increase in our total indirect debt, direct debt or what? How does it fit into the total accounting of the province's finances?

HON. MR. FRASER: The response to that question is simply that it will be included in the Crown corporation debt, which makes sense. Where else would you put it?

MR. LOVICK: It makes sense on one means of calculus. But in terms of our total debt picture, this will not then be recorded, right? It will be considered to be indirect debt and not reported in the normal Public Accounts by the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. FRASER: It will not be considered as direct debt, so obviously it would have to considered indirect debt. I hope that helps you with that.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know why the minister laughs at that point; it's a very significant point. If it's to show as direct debt, the borrowing in question would have

[ Page 13168 ]

the effect of misleading the public, as the auditor-general has noted, with respect to the extent of the overall debt of the province.

What we're talking about here is the provision with respect to increasing the amount the B.C. Ferry Corporation can borrow to an amount not exceeding $460 million. As I understand it, the purpose of that is to allow for construction of the superferry and related government projects to that superferry.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says: "Little ferries as well."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to the superferry, could the minister indicate how much of the money requisitioned here is allocated for the superferry work?

HON. MR. FRASER: I do not consider debt to be a laughing matter. That's not why I was laughing. What amused me was that we say things in this place differently than most engineers say them. The fact that we didn't consider it to be direct debt would then lead you to believe that it was an indirect debt — it's just the way the terminology works. Engineers usually like to get things done as opposed to fighting about words, but I know words are important in this particular ambience, so I try to use them carefully.

With respect to the amount of money for what we have called the superferries, the capital required for those two ferries will be in the order of $275 million.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to that $275 million, how much of that work is allocated to the firm of Vito Steel Boat and Barge Construction Ltd.? It's my understanding that that firm secured the contract to do some of the work in relation to the superferry contract. I'd like to know from the minister just how much of that money is part of that contract.

[10:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: This is slightly divergent from what we're trying to do, which is establish the money required to pay for the ferries. I can't give you a specific answer on what goes to that particular company or how much is going to the engines or the hull, but I can give you a global picture of the cost, which, I'm advised, is in the order of $275 million for the superferries.

MR. SIHOTA: I require an answer to that, quite frankly, Mr. Minister, because I think what you're doing here is coming here to the House and saying that you need some $275 million of this $460 million for the work. I know that some work is being done on the mainland by Vito Steel, and I think it's fair for the taxpayer to know how much money is being allocated in that regard. You've got your officials here in the room. I’d be quite happy if you stood down the section — I’d be quite agreeable to that — and have them go back and research that aspect of it and advise the House.

Before I request that, I'll put a number of other questions on the record, because I want the minister to see if he can also provide the House with the answer to this question: does he have any idea whether any of the work, any of the $275 million that's allocated, is going to the Versatile shipyard here in Esquimalt?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the debate is going way off the course here. We're not talking in this particular section about....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I know your ship is off course and on the rocks, but not our ship.

The issue here is to establish borrowing power, not to discuss the contracts per se, whether they be for engines, hulls, engineering or whatever. We're here debating whether we can provide the money to get the work underway so that we can provide employment for people in British Columbia shipyards and for people to work on the ferries, and to provide transportation networks for British Columbians so that they can go from place to place in B.C. easily, conveniently and happily. That's what we're discussing here, Mr. Chairman — funding, not the allocation of contracts.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about here is an expansion of the amount of debt that B.C. Ferries can take on. I want to know not just the reasons for that borrowing but also the commitments made with respect to that work. You are spending money here. You are making an application here to get some money. I can assure the minister that I concur with his sentiment that we need to spend this money in order to trigger some work and activity in our starved shipyards. As the minister knows full well, on several occasions in this House I've impressed upon the government the need to make sure this project proceeds. Believe you me, I want to make sure it proceeds expeditiously. Therefore I'm quite pleased to see that finally there is a bill before the House this June to request the borrowing necessary to engage in the work. But I know full well, as the minister knows full well, that commitments have already been made. Vito Steel Boat and Barge have been told that they're going to get a contract. I think it's only fair to know the quantum of that contract. I don't want to go into the kind of debate that we would normally have in estimates.

I also want to know how much of that money is being committed to work through Integrated Ferry Constructors, which is the company formed to manage the ferry program. The indication I have is that the final assembly work will then be done here on Vancouver Island in Esquimalt, where the superstructure modules will be put together.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Did I hear the Minister of Education say that part should be cancelled? I guess that's a

[ Page 13169 ]

peculiar kind of politics. The minister says that that part of it may be cancelled. I don't think that kind of speculation will give much comfort to my constituents, many of whom are unemployed and waiting for the contract to be announced.

The minister says it could be tough on me. I'm just worried about how tough it is on the people in my riding who are currently unemployed and waiting for the project.

I will get back to the minister. The ferry corporation has already made certain commitments with respect to this project. Could the minister indicate what schedule it sees for work, and what time-frame it sees for the expenditure of that $275 million?

The minister says he didn't hear, and I realize there's a lot of banter and chuckling on the other side. I just want to know what the time-frame is for the expenditure of that $275 million.

HON. MR. FRASER: The scope that we're now getting into is way beyond the scope of the bill. We're into a borrowing bill here, so that we can build ships, hire people and transport the citizens of British Columbia and all the tourists. We're not into allocation of contracts; it's not part of this. We're making sure that when we want to award contracts to the people building the ferry, we will have the money. That's what this does.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the minister understands. You have already awarded some contracts; you have awarded a contract to Vito Steel Boat. We all know that. That has been reported publicly. You've made that commitment. All I want to know is what time-frame the government sees for the work, and what schedule it sees for the expenditure of that money? Over what time period do you see the expenditure of that $275 million?

You have made some commitments already. When do you see the project being completed and that $275 million being exhausted with reference to the amount being asked in the bill? You can't just come in here and say: "Well, I want $460 million; give me approval for it." I need to know how much of it is being spent on the superferry. You have given me that number. I need to know how much of it is going to be spent on the mainland for work over there. I need to know how much of it is going to be expended with respect to work here in the greater Victoria area.

I'm sure the minister has those facts. That's why he has his officials here in the House. So again I want to put it to the minister: could he advise the House what time-frame they see for the expenditure of the $275 million?

I know the minister has got some information there; his officials are showing him some information. Perhaps he'd be kind enough to share it with the House.

HON. MR. FRASER: The schedule for the superferry — major completion would be in February 1993.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has said that he knows that the completion is scheduled for February 1993. I know that he has before him the schedule of when they see the various portions being done. Could he indicate to the House when they expect the work, on their timetables, to be completed by Vito Steel Boat and Barge Construction? When do they see the modules coming over to Esquimalt to be done?

HON. MR. FRASER: I've tried to make the point before; I'll make the point again. I don't have the breakdown of the contract. I've got a general completion date for the whole ferry, not a piece of it, nor the engines, nor the controls. I have a general completion date for the ferry of February '93, and that's the most detail I have with respect to the construction of the ferry. I can't give you any more than that, because this bill provides the money so that we can pay the people who are building the ferry.

MR. SIHOTA: Why doesn't the minister just read the briefing note, then we'll know exactly what he's got, and we can deal with the issue. You've got a briefing note there that tells you.... First of all, you already told us $275 million is being allocated to work on the superferry. You've now told us that you see the completion date as February 1993. Maybe you can tell us how many jobs you see being created by that expenditure. I'm sure you've got that information there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weren't you there? You should know that; you're the MLA.

MR. SIHOTA: As the MLA, I know full well what the government is doing. Let's talk about that. The member for Comox, who betrayed his constituents with respect to the ferry work in his riding, has raised an interesting issue. The fact of the matter is that what's happening with this project, despite the promises made by the provincial government that the bulk of the work would be done in the Esquimalt shipyards, it is my understanding, is that a nominal amount of work and a fraction of the contract is going to be allocated to Esquimalt. That is my concern.

I see that the minister has now left the room, not wanting to answer any more questions. In that regard, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

[10:45]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

[ Page 13170 ]

NAYS — 32

On section 8.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister's back in the House and has perhaps had an opportunity to reflect on his inability to answer the questions, may I make a number of concluding comments?

First of all, I'm sure that my constituents are certainly going to be disturbed to see the inability of the minister to answer the appropriate questions that have been put to him in regard to this very important issue — the absence of any commitment from the provincial government with respect to shipbuilding contracts for Esquimalt and the quantum of work that could flow to Esquimalt as a consequence of this contract. It is clear that the amount of work that we anticipated receiving as a consequence of the superferry contract is not going to be what we had anticipated. It is going to be significantly less, and I'm sorry to see that the minister cannot provide the House with any figures as to exactly how much. I'm sure when my constituents have an opportunity to read this material, they will feel as angered and frustrated as I do, because believe me, it is frustrating not to know exactly what the intentions of the government are. There are a lot of rumours out there with respect to the future of our shipyard. I would have hoped the minister would have given us some measure of comfort with his statements today, but I see that he has not.

I'll give the minister another opportunity. Is he prepared to tell the House how much of this work will be allocated to Versatile Pacific? Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: The scope of the questions the member has asked with respect to the size of the contract to any one supplier is totally out of order, has nothing to do with the section and is not required to be answered in this particular debate.

MR. LOVICK: Further to a matter I raised a few minutes ago with the Attorney-General regarding where the debt would be recorded in this, I would like to propose an amendment to this measure. I'm not going to go through any elaborate process of calling division or anything, but I want to register this amendment, and perhaps the Attorney-General will agree instantly.

I would move that the section be amended by adding a new subsection (3) to read as follows: "The debt calculated pursuant to subsection (2) shall be shown annually as a separate item in the general fund balance sheet of Public Accounts." The effect of this amendment is to give legislative expression to the recommendation by the auditor-general. You will recall that the auditor-general complained that the government was burying debt in the Crown corporations. It would seem to me that here is a wonderful opportunity for government to respond to the auditor-general's recommendation to allay the concerns that people have and to simply accept this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. FRASER: That sort of debate properly belongs in the purview of the Minister of Finance, so it would seem to me to make sense for him to do it for all Crown corporations, if it is the wish of the minister to bring that forward to the government. Obviously, I'm not going to agree to the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: Pity that the Attorney-General's response to the amendment illustrates precisely the problem that we have without the ministers here to deal with these things. In any event, we're going to let this section go, and I have a few comments to make on section 10. We'll give section 8, and we'll go briefly to section 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just for clarification, are you withdrawing the amendment that you proposed?

MR. LOVICK: No. Let's vote on it.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. LOVICK: We've had some conversation with ministry officials and understand that there is a very specific explanation for this particular change, which, as you recall, Mr. Attorney....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, it would be nice to have a little quiet, friends.

...changes the powers effectively conferred on the minister by adding a new section under the interpretation section of the bill. It adds to the normal definition of government buildings, highways and public works, and also public utilities. Fair enough. We understand the reason for that has to do with some negotiations with some Indian bands — that there aren't any problems and it won't compromise any land claim negotiations; all of that. But why is there a discrepancy between the note about public utilities and the word-

[ Page 13171 ]

ing of the legislation itself, which says: "...works of public utility"?

My concern is that that is so broad that it looks, quite frankly, silly. What it in fact says, if you accept that change in wording, is: "The minister has the management, charge and direction of all matters relating to the acquisition, construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, improvement and operation of....works of public utility." Sorry, that goes much beyond the realm of highways. We're suggesting that the Minister of Highways will become responsible for hospitals and a whole bunch of things.

I recognize that I am putting this in a reductio ad absurdum format, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's a fair question to ask. Why did we, the drafters of the legislation, choose that rather broad phrase "works of public utility" when we mean, in fact, public utilities? Can the Attorney-General answer that question?

HON. MR. FRASER: In fact, I raised the same issue myself when this was brought forward to the committee. My understanding at the time was that the federal government, in wanting to be absolutely certain that what they did was absolutely right, wanted to have an amendment so that when there was an agreement between the parties and the land was transferred from the federal government to the provincial government, there would be no recourse of any kind after the fact — once an agreement was made, it was all understood. These are changes made with agreement between the parties involved — the province and the federal government — with respect to Indian lands.

I can read the specific reasons into the record, if you wish, or I can just give you the general explanation.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. JONES: Section 14 broadens the scope for involvement by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which governs private schools in this province that offer post-secondary courses. I know the Attorney-General was Minister of Post-Secondary Education five years ago, until he made his famous Marie Antoinette statement and suggested that students, if they couldn't afford it, should postpone their education. I wonder if the minister might be able to assist in answering some questions on the commission under which this new category of schools will come. Could he assist the committee and bring it up to date on the operations of the commission and how it is functioning? Have the members of that commission been appointed? Does he have any background information to bring to the committee on how things have transpired since the approval of Bill 24 last year?

HON. MR. FRASER: The scope of that debate is well beyond the amendment being proposed here. What's being proposed here is an amendment to make sure that those students who come here and become involved in institutions which give not only secondary education but post-secondary education can be protected financially. It's got nothing to do with the operation of the commission; this is a protection-of-students section here, which is highly desirable, and I'm sure, acceptable to everybody.

MR. GABELMANN: Just on a procedural question, I wonder if the Attorney-General wouldn't mind if we could stand this section down until after we have dealt with the School Act provisions in sections 16 and 17. We could then come back to section 15. It would help our side out if we could do that.

[11:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreeable to both sides to stand it down?

HON. MR. FRASER: Just to make sure I understand what's happening, we're standing it down until after we finish sections 15, 16 and 17?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To make it clear, then, we stand down section 14 and 15, and we deal with 16 and 17 first.

On section 16.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to thank the House for accommodating that change in the order of our discussion in committee. Sections 16 and 17 both deal with amendments to the School Act. Section 16 is the de-implementation of dual entry, a Year 2000 program. Announcements were made earlier this year, but not very much earlier. It's interesting that almost a year ago to the day we were debating in the House during question period with the then Minister of Education, Mr. Brummet, the very issue that is the subject of this amendment — namely, whether November- and December-born children might have the option to go to school in September of last year rather than in January 1991.

And over a period of weeks, there were discussions among the parents whose children were affected. They had discussions with the minister, school districts and teachers around that issue. The minister finally, on the very last day of school, said no.

Here we are, a year later, still in the same state of confusion and uncertainty about a very large number of children — 14,000 children — who did indeed enter into a dual-entry program in January 1991 that has now been cancelled. It has now disappeared, and this particular amendment gives the minister statutory authority to act.

I want first of all to express again our concern about the confusion and chaos that has resulted from this late announcement, the effect on parents and their children and all of those sorts of things. Those matters were well canvassed during the estimates debate, and it's not my intention to canvass them again. I simply want to note that this amendment is finally dealing with a statutory authority for what the Minister of Education has been dribbling out in the way of information about what's going to happen to these children.

[ Page 13172 ]

Unfortunately, the amendment that we're dealing with today says that one-third of the children who started school in January 1991 now go back to a status that would have existed before the School Act came in. They can now go to school for a full day in September as if they had never been a part of the dual-entry program. However, two-thirds of those youngsters are left with what I call a residual program. In other words, dual entry is not quite gone; but it's partly gone. For those parents and children, the decision which says that they're still in a dual-entry program is less than satisfactory.

I want to make clear that we're not talking here about educational programs. We're not talking about the continuous progress of children. We're talking about these youngsters, probably 9,000 or 10,000 kids, who are caught in the very problems that were among the reasons why dual entry was cancelled in the first place — that there were administrative and organizational difficulties in putting that program into place. And from the time the minister first announced that he was going to abandon the dual-entry program altogether, I have encouraged that all the children be accommodated in a full-day program if they wish to be.

In respect to this particular amendment, I want to propose a further amendment that would accommodate those children and would enable the ministry to provide the opportunity for any child who entered school in January 1991 to attend school on a full-day program starting in September.

I want it to be known, Mr. Chairman, that there is within the policies and programs of the ministry a full-day kindergarten program at the discretion of school districts and the minister. That program is a part of the regular school system now. So this is not providing something that is not already available to a considerable number of children, and it would give to parents, teachers and school districts the entitlement to a full-day program to be available to these children should they so wish. I would like to note that we have dealt with the financing for that very program in the Education estimates. Last year the ministry allocated $23.5 million for dual entry; this year in the Education estimates, according to the minister's own figures, we have a figure of $29.25 million available for dual entry. So we have, in the estimate debate of the Ministry of Education, actually dealt with the capacity of government to provide the dollars necessary for that program.

So let me then, Mr. Chairman, put the amendment on the record. You have it at the table, and I believe that there is a copy there for the minister, should he wish to have it. I would move this amendment to the proposed dual-entry amendment — that section 16, a proposed amendment to the School Act, be amended by adding after "until the first school day of September of the next school year" the following: "Notwithstanding section 3, children who enrolled in school in January 1991 are entitled to a full-day education program effective in September 1991."

That amendment would provide the capacity to a school district and the authorization of the ministry to deal with the demise of this program that has caused so much confusion and unhappiness and so much of a sense of betrayal of trust in government felt by parents who were told by this government that this was a program that was in place — a program that was successful, a program that they were committed to — and then, in the midst of the very first year of the mandated program, they cancelled it and left 10,000 five-year-old children in limbo, because the government was not prepared to provide some flexibility. This is a reasoned amendment, Mr. Chairman, one that is designed to provide some means for the government to look after those youngsters as their parents, teachers and school districts might wish — that the entitlement would be there. And I hope the minister would look to this amendment as one that facilitates us dealing with the last remains of this program that has had such an unfortunate short history in the life of our education system and has had so much to do with getting these kids off to a start that has made very many parents unhappy.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member opposite, to anybody who happens to be in the gallery and to anybody who might be watching, the estimates of the Minister of Education were debated for an entire week. This particular issue was debated at length. The minister responded by saying that there will be accommodations made for all students who entered in the second part of dual entry. He has committed funds to that program.

Apart from the fact that the amendment won't even work, the issue of having a flow in the first few years of education is to let the children respond, grow and learn at their own rate. If there is anything discouraging about education — and there certainly is — it's the rigidity of organizations like the BCTF, who seem to think that education is stuck into a classroom box instead of being placed in the minds of the pupils. If we could just get to the point where we wouldn't think in these little boxes but would think in terms of growth and opportunity, then we'd get somewhere. The former minister tried very hard to give students a chance to come into the education system twice a year instead of just once. But the digging in of the heels by some of the more rigid organizations made the program impossible to function; it couldn't work. So now we are going to go back to the system we had, which says students can only enter the classroom one time each year. I regret that we aren't more flexible in education. However, in order to provide for the students, we had to take away the problem that some executive members of the BCTF had.

I don't think the teachers out there are the particular problem. I have a great regard for teachers, and education happens to be one of my favourite subjects. Since the first day I was elected to this Legislature, I've gone to the schools in the riding and visited with teachers, principals and students. I love education. What I hate is rigidity.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment isn't workable, isn't necessary and is unacceptable.

[ Page 13173 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: What we have on the part of this government is rigidity. This amendment is seeking to provide the very flexibility that the minister says he wants. We have flexibility for a third of the children who entered the dual-entry program. They can go to school for a full day or a half day. We have no flexibility for the children who were born in January or later.

The minister can obfuscate all he likes. He can try to say that there is some force out there that is a problem. The problem is that this government brought in a program that didn't work. We canvassed all the reasons why it didn't work in estimates, and I don't intend to canvass them again.

What I am attempting to do with this amendment.... If the minister can bring forward an amendment that achieves that in any way, shape or form, I would be delighted. I'm known in this House as a reasonable person who is more than ready to give to that side of the House the opportunity to recoup the mess that they're making. But you tell it to the 10,000 parents of those 10,000 youngsters who don't have a choice at this time, who are in an inflexible system, because you are not prepared to provide any remedy for a program that didn't work. Those people are caught in a system that they didn't devise, that this ministry devised, that they trusted this government to bring forward and to continue.

I want to make it eminently clear that we are now talking about the organizational means for this to be achieved. We are not talking about appropriate education programs for kids. I know that the teachers of the province will provide those to the very best of their ability in every classroom in the province. I'm talking about fairness to these children. I'm talking about some flexibility for these children who are a small group in the 520,000 children attending the schools of the province. For every one of those kids and every one of those parents, this is an important issue. Those kids are important.

This ministry — or this government, I should say, because you're speaking for the government — is taking the role of the Minister of Education today in this important debate. But you are, in fact...

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue to have the floor....

...speaking for a government policy that is not prepared to provide any flexibility for two-thirds of the children enrolled in January 1991 for a failed program. You are not prepared to ensure that there is a clear message that they will be accommodated in a full-day program if they so wish. The minister has made it very clear that the only people who will be accommodated are those who have sixth birthdays in November and December 1991. Those children are entitled to a full-day program. Those are the only children who will be entitled by any means that the government is prepared to resource. That's not fair. It's not acceptable.

[11:15]

My amendment is intended to address that issue. If you have a better amendment, Mr. Minister, bring it in. But deal with the issue, deal with those kids, provide the means for those youngsters to be fairly treated like the November-December children. We don't need a rehash of last year. We need to have some action. I leave it to the minister, on behalf of his government, to deal with that issue.

HON. MR. FRASER: Some of these students that the member talks about actually aren't even ready for a full-day program. With my colleague the Minister of Education in the room, I'm happy to repeat what he already said. He has committed something in the order of $7 million to the system to make sure that the students who came in in the early part of 1991 can be looked after. It's the flexibility of the minister and the government that is trying to help the students along. It's the rigidity of the executive of the BCTF and the opposition that has caused these problems. We're trying to give these kids a shot. We are going back to the old system as a direct consequence of obstacles put in the way of the program succeeding. We had to do that. That's being done, and that's what this amendment speaks to.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me ask the minister a very specific question: is there anything in the intention of this government, encompassed by this amendment or in the funding that the minister has spoken to, that will provide the opportunity for children with fifth birthdays in January 1991 or beyond to attend a full-day program in schools? Do parents have the clear option, with the resources provided as they must be through the Ministry of Education, to enrol their children born in January and onward in September for a full-day program, with the costs of that program being picked up by the Ministry of Education? Is that available to those parents — yes or no?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd just like to introduce some rational thinking into this debate, because we haven't had much from the other side. I'm surprised at that, because normally the member for New Westminster is rational and calm and concerned in her statements. I can say thank goodness for the teachers out there in the system. The reality is that the success of the primary program in the Year 2000 program can be directly attributed to the teachers in the classroom who do a first-class job. They contribute to the flexibility that's been provided in the system by the Year 2000 primary program — a well-thought-out and -designed program that is working very successfully. It depends on the communication between parents and teachers, which is ongoing.

I've spoken to numerous parents after deleting the dual-entry program, and I can tell you....

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's very difficult to speak above all the interruptions, particularly from the young member from Victoria who keeps on interjecting.

[ Page 13174 ]

But I want to say: let's not forget where the requests to cancel this program came from. The request to cancel this program came, first and foremost, from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the British Columbia Primary Teachers' Association — they are the ones out there delivering the program — the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the principals and vice-principals and the superintendents' association. What we were doing was responding to the need.

MS. A. HAGEN: Point of order. We're often reminded that we don't want to deal again with estimates debate in these amendments. We are dealing with the amendment, and I have asked some questions on the amendment, as it's my responsibility to do. I have proposed some further changes to the School Act. I would ask the Chairman to call the minister — and that side — to order and to deal with the amendments in the statute.

At this stage of the game I am ready to call the question on my amendment, and to note in closing debate that the point of the amendment is flexibility in the system for the 10,000 or so schoolchildren who are not being treated fairly by this government. That's the thing we're voting on at this stage.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed section 129.1(2) and substituting the following:

(2) Notwithstanding the budget adopted by a board under section 129,

(a) the board shall not, without the prior approval of the minister, reduce or eliminate the amount budgeted for students enrolled in special education programs below the budgeted expenditures for those students for the previous fiscal year, and

(b) the board shall ensure that all funds that the minister, before or after the coming into force of this section, has designated for students enrolled in special education programs are spent on those students' educational programs.

(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies with respect to the budget of a board for the 1991-92 fiscal year and budgets for succeeding fiscal years.

(4) Subsection (2)(b) applies with respect to the 1991-92 and subsequent fiscal years.]

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: Last Friday we had this particular statute and another bill introduced that were dealing with very significant aspects of life in our schools. We debated Bill 14 the other night, and I was really pleased that the minister — on the basis of some of the discussion and input he had from a number of people — decided that he wanted to give some further consideration to that piece of legislation.

These amendments that we're dealing with today deal with what I consider to be very similar issues in terms of their importance. At the very last minute again, we have amendments, which this time introduce some new proposals to deal with a very important part of our school system: special education. I would like to note that the amendments we got last Friday have been amended again, and we see those amendments this morning.

What kind of a situation are we dealing with, when we can't manage to get some of this clear and straight so that people know what we're talking about? I would note that for those people in the field who have read them, these amendments have already raised so many questions that we could spend the rest of the afternoon debating them. I don't intend to do that. I want to try to present some clear and reasoned arguments and a couple of amendments to deal with these particular amendments.

These amendments, which state that the minister shall determine what special-education programs are and that school boards cannot reduce their funding from last year for special-needs children without the approval of the minister, are cast in such a way that there is going to be absolute confusion.

Let me just look at some of the principles here, because this is a principle debate. Unfortunately, in second reading on a miscellaneous statutes bill, we can't have a principle debate. But let me talk to some of the principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the clarification of the Chair, hon. member, I'm not sure whether you are proposing an amendment or amendments to the amendment that has been proposed by the minister a little while ago. Perhaps you could make yourself clear in that respect.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good point. We now have an amendment to the amendment. I intend, on both subsections (1) and (2), to propose amendments to the amendments to the amendments. So we are going to be in a bit of a convoluted process. But for simplicity's sake, let's state that at this point we will simply deal with the amendments that stand on today's order paper. That's the substantive debate. I know we have to vote on that, but I will be addressing the amendments that the minister brought forward at this particular stage.

First of all, I want to look at what is encompassed in this particular two-stage change to the School Act. It's contrary to the spirit and the letter of the School Act. The School Act says that an educational program means an organized....

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, if we're going to debate, then the debate should be focused on the amended amendment. Is that what we're speaking to? Your diatribe is so all over the....

[ Page 13175 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify again, we're speaking at the moment on the amendment provided by the minister initially.

MS. A. HAGEN: In terms of any discussion, I will only be dealing with the amendment that stands on Orders of the Day today. We can't vote on those amendments without me losing my opportunity to move amendments to those amendments. I don't want to get into a procedural wrangle. If the Chair can help us with this, I have a proposal to amend the amendments the minister has brought forward.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the amended amendment, not what was prior to that. You keep inferring that we're going back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To make it clear and to make it much easier for the Chairman and all of us, I'm sure, it would be advisable that the member would move the amendments to the amendment. Then we could deal with those amendments first before we deal with the amendment that has been brought forward by the minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't create this bit of procedural....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: You brought in the first amendment, Mr. Minister. Let me just deal with what are some of the principles addressed in the amendments the minister has placed on the order paper today. Let me go back to where I started.

These amendments are contrary to the School Act because according to the School Act: "'Education program' means an organized set of learning activities that, in the opinion of (a) the board, in the case of learning activities provided by the board" — and that's what this is all about —  "(b) the minister, in the case of learning activities in a provincial school" — that's what this is not about — "and (c) the parent, in the case of...." That's for youngsters registered at home.... We are talking here about educational programs provided by the schools.

The very first principle we're dealing with is that the minister has now taken unto himself prerogatives in terms of the programs provided by the schools.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to save face, because the minister has failed to live up to funding that meets the needs of all the special-education kids in the province. Again, I don't intend to go back to the estimates debate, but we covered again and again the fact that school districts in the province were not only providing programs to the limit of funding available through the block funding system, but they were, in every instance that we brought forward, exceeding those funds or maintaining them at a level that the ministry provided.

If we look at this particular amendment....

HON. MR. FRASER: Perhaps we can help by pointing out that we're talking about budget, not program. You cannot change the budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: You're not talking about the amendment. That's a point of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Talk about budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member for New Westminster to restrict her comments to the amendment that has been proposed by the minister.

[11:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to the fact that this section has two parts: one which has not been amended — section 1— and one which has. We are discussing both parts, and I am dealing with section 17 and both parts of that section. I would be much helped if the Attorney-General — who is not the Minister of Education, but thinks he is the minister of everything — would allow me to continue to make some points about this issue. Then I will, in the same manner, allow him to respond on behalf of the government.

It is extremely difficult when that minister is leaping up every few minutes to try to tell the Chair how to conduct its affairs. I'm quite confident, Mr. Chairman, that you are more than capable of doing that on behalf of all of the members of this House.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Are you criticizing the Chair, Mr. Member for Yale-Lillooet?

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Then you should keep your comments, even if they're not on the record, to yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, can we have a little order so the member for New Westminster can address her points through the Chair to the minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For anyone trying to follow this, the government, which I think is trying to save face with this amendment, is trying to obfuscate any kind of reasonable and rational discussion of the issue.

The first part of this amendment, which says that special-education programs mean special-education programs as determined by the minister, in fact gives the minister the opportunity to say that something is not a special-education program and then to require boards to continue to fund those programs by virtue of not allowing them to reduce the budget made available to them. It's a very difficult kind of provision for the minister to deal with, because we have no idea of the

[ Page 13176 ]

parameters in which he's working. Let's note that this minister has capped at a certain level some parts of special-education funding. The minister has already said that regardless of the number of students in the district that require such funding for an integrated program to serve their educational needs, we will only fund 3.65 percent, I think he said, of the enrolment. It doesn't make any difference if the school district has 4 percent or 5 percent or 6 percent. We will only fund that many people. So we are now giving to the minister even more powers to define special education and at the same time to deal with boards' ability to provide services to those kids.

Let me say from the outset that what we are dealing with here is the ability of boards to provide services for special-education students. Let us remember that in the philosophy of Year 2000, which is very contrary to this amendment — or let me put it this way: this amendment is very contrary to Year 2000 — the concept is that children will be integrated into the school system; that there will be a continuum of progress; and that many children who in fact are in need of some special education will now be served in such a way that they will no longer require such services. This particular amendment tends to obfuscate all of that and give the minister powers to come in and tell boards what they're going to do, without the necessary corollary that the resources will be there for the boards to do that job.

To ensure that the Minister of Education does not have such unprecedented powers, I would like to move an amendment to section 17(1). That amendment reads: "That section 129.1(1) be amended by deleting the words 'As determined by the minister' and replacing them with 'As determined by the minister on the advice and with the consent of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and members of the public representing the interests of special-education students.'"

Mr. Chairman, people concerned about special education have ever since the School Act came in expressed concern about the definition of "special education," about the resources allocated to special education and the sufficiency of both definition and resources. What this does is recognize, as the amendment does, that this is a special area, and says that the minister, in the consultative mode that Year 2000 promotes, will establish, in a different and perhaps more comprehensive way, what is in special education, and he will do that with the support of stakeholders, who are teachers, trustees and concerned parents, whether they be from the Learning Disabilities Association or the Association for Community Living or the people who work with the blind or the deaf — whatever the groups are.

I believe that that amendment would provide for the people of the province, who are concerned about the education of these children, a vehicle for discussion in the act, and I would encourage the minister to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered: as a means of making certain that we deal with this very sensitive and important area in consultation with the many people who are responsible for delivering those services.

HON. MR. FRASER: Special education has always received special attention. You have to be very sure and make certain that the money goes into a program that is going to provide a good service. What we're talking about with respect to the amendment that I propose, as opposed to the one you propose, is solving a problem. The Minister of Education provides funds for special education needs in the province of British Columbia in excess of $582 million. The school boards are spending just slightly in excess of $500 million. Somehow, somewhere, the school boards have taken the difference between those two numbers and spent it on programs other than special ed. In other words, almost $81.5 million delivered by the government to the school boards for special education is not going into special education. The amendment on the floor by the government is going to ensure that that money cannot be taken out of special-education programs without its consent. It is a good amendment. It has actually been amended to make what has to be done even more conspicuous and obvious. In supporting the amendment that I proposed to the amendment, I therefore must reject yours. We do not want school boards to take $81 million devoted to the needs of special-education students and slide it into another department. That's the total purpose of this amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: Unfortunately, the minister wasn't listening, Mr. Chairman, because I was not dealing with the second part of the amendment. I was dealing with the first part — namely, who is going to define "special education." At the moment the minister does. That's part of our problem. I remember clearly — and I have it in Hansard — that the minister said during his estimates that there was $255 million for special education in the province. Now the minister says that there's another sum in the province.

There is no way, given the method by which this government funds — or, to use its language, provides funds for — special education, that anyone is ever able to track what it is providing in relation to what boards are providing. I could give the corollary to the minister's comments about districts who provide, in great excess.... We're talking about the total child, not just the dollars that go for the special education of that child in the way of counsellors, support services, learning assistants, special aids or what have you. We're talking about a total program for kids.

We're not going to get into the business of debating numbers here. The amendment I just proposed is an amendment that deals with who defines "special education." Mr. Chairman, I’d like to deal with that amendment. At the moment the minister defines it. As I say, if we look at those two sets of figures presented to this House within a week of one another, we simply are not going to know, except by the eminence of the minister, what is in special education, because he is not prepared to define it. He has not been prepared to define it in any way that anyone has able to follow at this stage of the game.

[ Page 13177 ]

My amendment deals with the minister having some accountability to those people who are affected by those decisions. I would like to deal with the amendment to (1) of this particular section at this time.

Amendment to the amendment negatived on division.

MS. A. HAGEN: Now we can deal with the second part of this clause, which is the matter that is addressed by the minister's amendments. As I said, I will be dealing with those particular amendments.

I have an amendment to propose. But at this stage of the game, I want to ask a few questions about this particular section. Perhaps we could ask the minister how he proposes to deal with enrolment in special education. We're talking in this amendment about tying this year's funding to last year's expenditures. But we don't deal with the same enrolment, so how can we tie this year's expenditures for special education to last year's budgeted amounts?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps because this is such a bad piece of legislation and such a bad amendment, one that provides such confusion, one that is....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: You don't know what it's all about. Just imagine what the secretary-treasurers, superintendents and school boards of the province are dealing with.

On the last day of school we have an amendment brought in — with no implementation date, I might note, in this legislation — which says that the minister is now going to define special education, an important field. He's now going to define it and is going to have something to say about the funding of special education, based on the previous year.

Let me propose an amendment that would, I believe, at least have us dealing in constant dollars, the dollars that we are looking at in this year's block. The amendment would read that we delete the words "budgeted expenditures for those students for the previous fiscal year" and replace them with "a level of funding specifically provided to the school district by the Ministry of Education for special-education programs for the current fiscal year."

On the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to that amendment, at least in this awful amendment that is totally confusing, totally impossible to define and administer, totally uncertain about when it's going to be brought into force — it's the last day of school, with everybody planning next year's school system — with totally disparate figures on what we are talking about.... At least we would begin to talk about this year's block, this year's funding, what the minister is providing, and what boards are dealing with.

I don't even want to be dealing with an amendment, but I'm trying to improve things from the mess that this government is putting us in at this stage of the game.

[11:45]

HON. MR. FRASER: For the benefit of the members opposite, who probably do know, and for the benefit of those in the gallery, who may find out something new today, and certainly for those at home, let me tell you that the minister has always defined special-education programs, even in those three awful years when the New Democratic Party was the government. The minister has always done that.

This is the book. This is the guideline for special education. I know I'm not supposed to use props, Mr. Chairman, but this is the book — a huge book — defining needs for physically handicapped, visually impaired, hearing-impaired, autistic, severe learning disabilities, mildly mentally handicapped, rehabilitation, ESL, Indian education, gifted, hospital and homebound. There's a huge book. The minister has always had that power.

The essence of the amendment that we're putting through the Legislature now is to protect the budget for those needing special education. We gave them $582 million, as you heard from the Minister of Education, not too long ago. They spent $500 million. There's a difference of $81.4 million, and we say that money which is designed and directed to special-education needs should stay there. Surely you can't object to that.

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the interesting aspects of the minister's estimates was that when we looked at the figures that the minister brought forward, in which he stated that boards were not spending the money allocated, we found that the minister was not being forthright and accurate in telling us what boards were spending. We found that he was making statements that boards were spending less, but in fact they were spending at least the amount or more, and that was demonstrated in ministry audits of boards when those questions came up.

We are entirely supportive of special education getting the resources it needs, and in many instances we are supportive of boards getting the dollars that they need to provide for special-education kids, instead of having to decide whether one special-education child is going to be supported and another special-education child is not going to be supported.

The purpose of the amendment — just to deal with that for a moment — is to ensure that we're not dealing with last year's budget. It seems to me a strange way of ensuring services are there. I think we need to be assured about how we are going to interpret this particular amendment. Are we talking about the global budget of the district? Are we talking about dollars allocated to specific children? Is this a dollar amount per child? Is the minister planning to audit the dollars spent on each child? How does that fit in with the concept of integration, where children in a regular

[ Page 13178 ]

class are often provided with services in excess of those that would be normally needed, because of the special needs of that child plus learning assistance being available?

The amendments the minister brought forward do not provide clear direction about what is intended. It is a "save-face" amendment on the part of the minister to get himself out from under what has happened because of taking away funds from certain districts that have been funding those schools through supplementary funding.

It's a complicated area, where boards have been struggling to provide those services. The minister is now saying that he has a white charger that is going to bring about change. That is not the case. The problem is in funding formulas and how they are distributed. The problem is in capping and in districts trying to accommodate changes in policy. This minister is off on some kind of a witch-hunt with boards that's going to get nowhere.

Let's deal with the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Let's see if the minister is at least prepared to look at this year's budgets, not last year's. Then we can look at some of the questions about how he intends to implement this.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, let's be clear about what we are going to accomplish with this legislation. We are in a situation in British Columbia where we can be proud that we offer the best special-education programs anywhere in this country. What has happened, though, is that during the budgetary process, if the boards out there are not satisfied with the amount of money they receive from the government, the first place they look to effect cuts are special-ed programs.

I have sent a letter to all school board chairpersons saying: "You will not balance your budgets on the backs of special-needs children." That is what the purpose of this legislation is. I will not, as the minister, sit idly by while boards attempt to cut special-ed programs when we, in fact, provide more money than they use on special-ed programs. That is the essence of this legislation. I can tell you that parents of special needs kids out there are waiting intently for this amendment to be passed, because they are tired of being used as pawns by some school boards around the province who look to special-needs as the first place to effect cuts. I, as the minister, will not allow that to happen.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, that is such a bunch of hogwash. For all the years of this Social Credit administration the school districts of this province have been attempting to provide services for kids, including a lot of kids with some very special needs — in spite of what this government is doing, not because of what it is doing. This particular amendment doesn't deal with the difficulties that boards are having in that regard. It doesn't deal with the fact — let me just give you one set of figures — that for special health services, the "red book" provides for one staff person for 1,700 students, and the school district is providing one staff person for 1,400 students. It doesn't provide for the fact that there's counselling in the "red book" for one person for 1,500, and the district is providing for one in 700 and is decreasing its service because of budget constraints. It doesn't provide for the fact that where we have a very high demand for service, the district is providing 20 percent more service to students than the fiscal framework provides in order to accommodate those needs.

What I want to deal with.... I know the government is going to defeat it, but I want at least to make an effort to have this amendment, which will go through in spite of us and which won't solve the problems that the minister is talking about.... It will give him some means to save face but won't deal with those real problems. Let's deal with the amendment, in which we're at least talking about this year's budget, not last year's budget. I can't imagine why a school and the minister would be dealing with last year's budget in an amendment like this. We're talking about the kids who are going to be in school in September and about programs that are going to be there in September, and this amendment says: let's at least talk about those dollars, not last year's dollars.

MS. EDWARDS: "Dipstick management at its best" is the phrase I use to describe this particular section. I wish I could say that I had invented it myself, but I didn't. I got that phrase from one of the administrators in a school board whose members I talked to. That is exactly what the attitude is about this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, it deals with an intrusion into school boards — again — over who decides what is special education. The intrusion was laid out very clearly by my colleague from New Westminster. That is the first thing that happens.

Again, the school boards are not allowed to do what they should be deciding to do. With the people who elected them in our own district.... Our district has attempted to put more money into special education than the ministry is allowing. The board can't do it, because the ministry hasn't given them enough funding under the block funding. That has created more concern than any concern that the minister is talking about in districts where he says people are concerned that there isn't enough there. The parent advisory group...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just not sure, hon. member, whether you are speaking on the amendment or on the amendment to the amendment, or whether you are speaking on estimates, but it seems to me that you are not very clear in speaking on the amendment to the amendment, which is the subject for discussion.

MS. EDWARDS: I will attempt to clarify, Mr. Chairman, whether I'm speaking on the amendment or the amendment to the amendment to the amendment. What I am trying to deal with is the proposal that comes in the amendment proposed by the minister. It says that the board shall not, without the prior approval of the minister — I believe that's what it says now — reduce or eliminate the amount budgeted for students.

[ Page 13179 ]

I'm talking about my district and my board, Mr. Chairman, and how this particular amendment would relate to that. That is one of the issues; it is a specific example of how this would relate. The parent advisory committee in my district has said that our district already lacks adequate funding for special education. Then we have the ministry's funding, which has not given it adequate room — in fact, they had to cut funding this year for proposals that they were going to do. It's very unlikely, if this amendment passes, that the district will not feel great apprehension about spending more than they are getting from the ministry, or more than....

HON. MR. FRASER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The debate being presented here is all very interesting, but it has all been presented during an entire week of debates on the ministry, and that's all very interesting and all very historical. The issue at hand, however, is an amendment, and the member hasn't even got close to talking about that. Possibly with your help, Mr. Chairman, the member could do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken, hon. minister. I ask the member to be relevant to the amendment.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to refer to the very wording of the amendment as it's put on Orders of the Day. It says: "...the board shall not, without the prior approval of the minister, reduce or eliminate the amount budgeted for students enrolled in special education programs below the budgeted expenditures for those students for the previous fiscal year...."

I might say to the Chairman that this requires that any board which spends more on special education than the ministry provides could certainly be caught in a state where the next year they will be required to again spend that much money whether or not they have the numbers of students there. It shall not reduce the amount that it spent last year, perhaps on more students than it has this year, perhaps on more services. It is very possible that school boards will find that they have fewer students or that they may in fact simply have more squeeze under the funding that they have. They may find that they do not want to catch themselves in a situation where they have exceeded the funding that they got from the ministry. If they do, the following year they cannot go back and make that decision again. Their decision-making powers have been reduced considerably by this amendment. I'm sticking very close to this amendment, and that's what they're saying.

It is not a logical extension to follow from last year's funding what a board should spend on special-needs education the next year. It is not necessarily a constant amount that a board gets from the ministry, because the ministry has put out a block of funding which is distributed among different districts. One district, which got a certain percentage of the block one year, would get a different percentage in another year; and therefore the board has very little control over what is happening.

This amendment simply takes more power away from the board. It doesn't allow the board to know what it's going to be working with, even to the extent of knowing what the funding may be and what they may have to do for special-education students.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must again remind you that we're dealing with the amendment to the amendment. We're not dealing with the amendment proposed by the minister at the present time.

MS. EDWARDS: Then I shall sit down until such time as we vote on that amendment.

MS. CULL: One of the considerations of the amendment is that we try to make some sense out of what has been proposed by this minister, which makes no sense. The amendment as proposed by the minister — and I'm going to move onto our own member's amendment — doesn't deal with constant dollars. It doesn't deal with the current year. It doesn't even deal with the students who are enrolled this year. It doesn't recognize that the number of students receiving special education may shift from one year to the next. It certainly doesn't deal with the fact that the amount of money that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the members that we are already past 12 o'clock, and I hate to interfere with the member speaking....

MS. CULL: I would be happy to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would remind those members on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts that there is a meeting in about three minutes in the Douglas Fir committee room.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.