1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 2, Number 1
[ Page 639 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
E. Barnes: My community assistant, Sharon Costello, is in the galleries. She is very good, and I would like the House to join me in making her welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, there is a group of students in the gallery today representing Victoria area schools, and I would like you to join me in welcoming them here and recognizing them in their efforts in energy conservation. These students from eight Victoria schools and Camosun College have for the past two months been conducting experiments and studies to make homes, schools and vehicles more energy-efficient.
The automotive students at Camosun College carried out an experiment in fuel-efficient driving, and the experiment dramatically demonstrated savings to be obtained from careful driving and a well-tuned car. Students at Strawberry Vale Elementary School have installed programmable thermostats in two of their portable classrooms to cut down on energy use, while students at Colquitz Junior Secondary School have formed a committee to save energy around their school. Many other useful and practical activities have been undertaken by Victoria area students to conserve energy in the past two months.
These projects were sponsored by Fuel Smart, which is a ministry, Centra Gas and B.C. Hydro Power Smart program. We have two gentlemen from Centra and B.C. Hydro in the visitors' gallery with the students. Representing B.C. Hydro is Mr. Frank Cappello, manager of Hydro's Vancouver Island South region, while Mr. Mike Burton, vice-president of marketing, is representing Centra Gas.
The students who are with them will be in my office to receive plaques for their efforts right after question period, so I do ask you to give them a very warm welcome.
W. Hurd: I just wanted to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of two of my constituents from Surrey-White Rock, Frank Klassen and Helen Abear, who are visiting us today. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: It is with some sadness that I ask the House to note the passing of Brother Syd Thompson, a longtime, tireless worker for working people in this province in the IWA, and the president of the Vancouver and District Labour Council. He fought the good fight for many people in this province, and he will be sorely missed by all of us.
S. Hammell: I rise to recognize the grade 10 students from L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary School and the eight adults accompanying them. Their teacher is Mr. MacDonald. Would the House please welcome them.
D. Mitchell: With leave, I would like to make a brief statement on the anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: Today a group of Canadians is returning to a plateau in northern France, after more than seven decades, to remember one of history's most famous and most bloody battles. On April 9, 1917, Canadian soldiers took Vimy Ridge. Canadian forces were victorious after the armies of France and Britain had failed and given up. From Vimy Ridge, the German army had a commanding view of the approaching forces. Employing tactics never before tried, small groups of Canadian soldiers trudged uphill through snow, through mud and through blood, inching their way to the top, while enemy artillery fired upon them. By mid-morning on that terrible day some 3,600 young Canadians were dead and 10,000 more were wounded. Today we remember this sacrifice, and we hope that our generation and future generations will comprehend the value of this memory.
The anniversary of this decisive battle in the Great War, the war that was supposed to end all wars, marks a special moment of reflection for all of the families of Canadians who were touched by that tragic event. And, hon. Speaker, that includes some members of this assembly. I know that all members of this House will join me today in expressing the fervent hope that never again will Canadian lives, or indeed any lives, be lost in military confrontations such as the one that took place at Vimy Ridge 75 years ago today.
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to echo the words of the opposition House Leader.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member rising in response? Does the House grant leave?
Leave granted.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that Vimy Ridge was a stark reminder of Canada's role in World War I, and it was probably the turning-point of Canada's role as a military aid of Britain's war effort. Indeed, at Vimy Ridge, at considerable cost to Canada, I think we emerged as a nation. Certainly my own family was involved. Two of my uncles, who were 19 years old, were killed 24 hours apart in that battle.
The honour roll of some of the regiments from British Columbia -- the 54th Kootenay, the 225th and the 2nd CMRs -- goes on and on. Illustrated in that is France's decision -- the only time in their history -- to cede part of France to Canada as a tribute to those warriors of almost eight decades ago.
The Speaker: Leader of the third party, are you rising on the same item?
J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: I would very briefly like to join with the other two parties in recognizing this day, obviously an important one in Canadian history and one that we take pride in. We hope that it will never again be necessary for Canadians to involve themselves in this kind of action.
[ Page 640 ]
BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. T. Perry presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, thank you for this momentous occasion. I'm pleased to introduce today Bill 22, the Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, which contains proposed amendments to the Barbers Act.
Interjections.
Hon. T. Perry: I see one hon. member who thinks he no longer has any use for barbers. One hon. member was even embarrassed to show up here today.
There are also proposed amendments to the Hairdressers Act. The purpose of these amendments is: (1) to remove the requirement that all barbers and hairdressers must produce medical certificates stating that they are free from all contagious and infectious diseases -- an anachronistic requirement; (2) to remove the reference to "moral" in the requirement that barbers and hairdressers must be of "good moral character," putting them on a level playing-field with the rest of us...; [Laughter.]
I had no idea when I rose how momentous an occasion this is. This is the first time in three years anyone has laughed at one of my comments.
[2:15]
...(3) to replace the term "infectious and contagious" with "communicable" in the reference to scope of examinations, including the protection of the public from infectious and contagious diseases; (4) to update the amount of fines charged for offences under the Barbers Act; (5) to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe the amount of examination fees charged under the Hairdressers Act.
The effect of these proposed amendments will be to update outmoded provisions in both the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Act.
I commend this bill to the House and urge its speedy passage, and having tasted the joy of mirth in the chamber I'll do my best not to go another three years.
Motion approved.
Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
SENDING PATIENTS OUT OF PROVINCE
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm today the reports that were written in this morning's newspapers that she has indeed confirmed the sending of patients to Seattle and Alberta to receive urgent medical care, and would she give the House the estimated additional costs for these flights out of province?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I can confirm that we are doing everything we can to ensure that British Columbians receive emergency medical care, including, where necessary, considering sending them to Alberta and Washington.
The additional costs, which are not borne by the patient but picked up the Ministry of Health, to transport a patient are $244 to Alberta and $112 to Seattle. We have a reciprocal arrangement with Alberta, which means that there is no difference in the cost of performing the surgery than here in British Columbia. In Washington State there is a difference. I don't have that figure in front of me, but we will pay the difference.
G. Wilson: Perhaps I might add some light on what the difference will be in Seattle. In doing so I would address the second question. If I was to quote the former Health critic, who is now the Minister of Advanced Education and is himself a doctor, he suggests that it "is a disgrace to which there is no answer."
Interjections.
G. Wilson: "...an emergency measure to send patients to Seattle, where the province pays three times...."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I think members are well aware that question period does have some definitions in both the questions and in the replies. I would remind all hon. members to review the rules of question period if necessary. Please proceed.
G. Wilson: The only reason I was drawing attention to the quote was because it is three times...which leads me to my second question. Given that the former Health critic has said that the cost is three times that which it is in British Columbia, can the minister explain why she has money to spend on health care in the state of Washington but she doesn't have the same amount of money to spend in British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: As I replied earlier, we are dealing with those emergency cases which, for whatever reason, essential services in British Columbia are not able to cover. I expect these to be a very small number of cases, and surely the member is not suggesting that we would not do something when people are in critical need of health care in this province. This government is willing to do what it is to make sure that people get the care they need while there is a labour dispute going on.
Now I have to tell the hon. member that the amount of money we are talking about here -- $244, $112 -- over such a small number of patients will not make more than the tiniest amount of input into any of the labour disputes we have right now with the Hospital Employees' Union. If that money was to be made available, I couldn't even calculate the percentage impact it would have, because we'd have so many zeros after the decimal point before we got to a real number it wouldn't be real.
[ Page 641 ]
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
G. Wilson: That response flies directly in the face of the former Labour critic, now the Minister of Labour. I could quote from Hansard, but I would likely be shouted down from the other side. However, the record stands for itself.
Let me come directly to the point on this question. Insofar as the minister has only talked about transportation costs and not the costs of health care delivery in Seattle, why would the minister not extend the amount of service provided for critical care? Why, in her capacity as minister, would she not make sure that essential-services protection is extended and expanded in British Columbia so that the limited budget she talks about can be invested in health care in B.C. rather than in a new twist to the concept of cross-border shopping? We're now cross-border shopping for a hospital bed.
Hon. E. Cull: I really regret that the member opposite keeps playing politics with the lives of British Columbians on this one. I did deal with the cost of the surgery. We have a reciprocal agreement with Alberta. We have a reciprocal agreement with all provinces in Canada and they with us. Patients travel across the country to care. We have contracts in place for radiotherapy in Seattle. That deals with the fact that there is a worldwide shortage of radiation oncologists right now. While we have all the facilities in the world to deal with that, we don't have the staff here in British Columbia -- and neither do they in many other places. We have radiotherapy and also cardiac surgery contracts in place with Seattle already.
COGENERATION POLICY
L. Fox: One of the great non-partisan initiatives supported by the past government was the development of a cogeneration facility at Williams Lake. My question is to the minister responsible for cogeneration initiatives. Will this government reaffirm the previous government's policy of paying the 25 percent premium now offered through B.C. Hydro for power purchased from cogeneration plants regardless of which region of the province it's produced in?
Hon. A. Edwards: The 25 percent number is one that has changed over time. It is a premium that was delivered from the government rather than specifically through B.C. Hydro. It was certainly connected to B.C. Hydro projects, but it was a government decision. Right now that particular policy is under consideration.
L. Fox: Perhaps that's why the industry is having such a difficult time getting an answer as to who is leading the policy development with respect to this particular very solid environmental and job-creating initiative, because we've had a great deal of....
An Hon. Member: The question.
L. Fox: The question will follow very shortly.
The proponents of this have tried four different ministers to deal with the policy development of cogeneration. Is this minister prepared to tell us that she will play the lead role in formulating a policy that would incorporate and promote cogeneration in all regions of this province, so that we might get on with the opportunity of creating new jobs?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I can give the answer that this ministry will lead the policy on cogeneration.
The Speaker: A final supplementary.
L. Fox: Just one very quick question. When could we expect the ministry to be in a position to deal with these initiatives that are presently on hold?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a question of future policy, and it's out of order.
GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM
J. Tyabji: Surely the appeal process must be sacred if democracy is to be effective. Moving the Asian gypsy moth spray date ahead has denied the public the right to appeal. My question to the Minister of Environment is this: is it his judgment that the gypsy moth threat is so dangerous to the people of B.C. that the democratic appeal process should be bypassed?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for Okanagan East for that excellent question. The fact is that we are elected as representatives of the people to make decisions. The best decisions are those made when there is adequate time for due process. There are some decisions that have to be made because the circumstances are circumstances of emergency. Our best scientific information shows a window of opportunity that begins tomorrow and lasts until the date when the appeal process would have concluded. The fact is that on the best of all available information, it is incumbent upon good government to act decisively, carefully and caringly when those circumstances prevail.
J. Tyabji: A supplemental to the Minister of Environment. Two prominent entomologists -- Dr. Meyers and Dr. Graham -- have publicly made the case that the Asian gypsy moth cannot survive in a northern coniferous forest; therefore the $5.5 million program is a waste. My question to the Minister of Environment is: would he please table the studies he and his cabinet have referred to which show the Asian gypsy moth can survive in this climate?
Hon. J. Cashore: Our government has been reviewing a great deal of information that has been made available to us through proponents in Agriculture Canada, the federal Department of Forestry, the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and the provincial Ministry of Forests. We'd be glad to make available the information we have.
I would point out to the hon. member that it's ironic that I would be asked this question on this day, when over three weeks ago we sent out a memo inviting MLAs to come to an information meeting and not one member of the Liberal Party showed up.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
[ Page 642 ]
J. Tyabji: By the way, I was in the hospital at the time, so I couldn't make it.
My final supplemental then is to the minister responsible for aerial spraying, the Minister of Forests. In 1979 the Premier was on a task force which successfully opposed aerial spraying for the gypsy moth. Today he is Premier with a cabinet that not only endorses the same program but considers it critical to the well-being of the province. My question to the Minister of Forests is: when was the Premier wrong? In 1979 or 1992?
Hon. D. Miller: The Premier wasn't wrong at all. I would draw the member's attention to the fact that the moth being combated at that time was the European gypsy moth. The moth the province is combatting now is the Asian gypsy moth. There is a significant difference in that the Asian gypsy moth is capable of flight over quite a wide area. The possibility of the infestation of this moth in the greater Vancouver region presents a severe environmental and economic risk to this province. It is absolutely imperative, based on the best advice we've received, to begin the spraying program by April 15. The risks are very grave; this program is absolutely imperative. It is absolutely safe. In fact, it is a sound environmental decision.
PARKSVILLE FLATS
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment, and it involves yet another broken campaign promise -- this time at the Parksville Flats. The NDP member for Parksville-Qualicum promised his constituents, during the election, that his government would save the Parksville Flats and the Englishman River estuary. Today gravel trucks have replaced birds in this important sanctuary. What happened?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that every reasonable effort was expended by this government in the context of fiscal responsibility. It was carefully reviewed. It would be most inappropriate to suggest that staff in the Ministry of Environment had not acted with due diligence, because they have, as carefully and as thoroughly as they possibly could.
Hon. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know that a great many discussions took place, including careful work in cooperation with the Nature Trust. If the hon. member is suggesting that there be an open chequebook when it comes to such issues, then let him declare that. Otherwise, I am confident that we have acted as appropriately as possible in the interests of the entire province.
[2:30]
The Speaker: I will allow one supplemental to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, and then I will give the last short question to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.
W. Hurd: Again to the minister. Today environmentalists are being arrested in the Parksville Flats because this minister sold them out. This is hypocrisy from a minister who promised to double the size of park lands and wilderness in this province. Has this minister ever committed even a dime to the special fund for the acquisition of 190 acres in Parksville Flats?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the fact is that government money was on the table. The total amount of private money, provincial government money and district of Parksville money was not sufficient to make an offer close enough to the appraised value to be in the ballpark. Therefore the offer was not able to be made.
JAPAN AIRLINES POLICY DIRECTIVE
E. Barnes: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Human Rights. I'm concerned about an acknowledged policy directive by Japan Airlines to segregate India-bound passengers travelling from Vancouver. While the airline says the policy is based on passenger and attendant convenience, it has the appearance of systemic discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin. Will the minister convey to Japan Airlines this assembly's concern with respect to this seeming segregation policy?
Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the hon. member for the question. I am aware of the matter that he has raised. The airline is federally regulated, and it is my understanding that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been asked to deal with it in terms of jurisdiction.
I think it's also worth noting that one of the amendments that we propose in the throne speech under our own Human Rights Act would allow for a class action to be brought to our own Human Rights Commission. That's not possible under our current legislation. It would open up the door for us as a province, or a class of people within the province, to be able to speak for the people of this province on this issue. In practical terms, I'm writing to the airline, expressing the concern of the people of British Columbia and asking for their explanation of this issue, which I think has offended all people of goodwill and with a respect for human rights. We will be closely monitoring that situation.
Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, I'd like to draw the House's attention to standing order 47A(b), which says: "questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." And further, subsection (d) says: "debate shall not be permitted." We've been in this House now for some weeks, and there has been a consistent pattern of abuse from the opposition of the standing orders -- the official opposition, I might say. I think you can find, hon. Speaker, that....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll refrain from a response to that. I simply want to make the point, hon. Speaker, that it is the government's intention to end the longstanding practice of points of order at the end of question period, if in fact the opposition persists in abusing the rules of
[ Page 643 ]
the House, because the rules of the House have been abused consistently. We've been in the House long enough now for the members opposite to learn that standing order 47 prevails.
D. Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order, hon. Speaker, we've been reviewing question period every day. Standing order 47 is very clear on oral questions. I think the fact that the government House Leader is trying to draw attention to abuses of question period is useful. I think we should review the answers as well as the questions. The questions have been concise; they've been to the point. We've been looking....
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: We've sometimes had problems with the answers, but I think we all need to tighten up. The point is actually well made.
But for the government House Leader to suggest that the government is now going to threaten to change the rules of the assembly because they're not happy, I think is a little ludicrous. I think it's a threat to all members of this assembly. He's threatening all members of this assembly, and I think that's extremely inappropriate. If we really want to respect the rules and the practices of this House, the government House Leader should refrain from making threats and live up to the standing orders of this House, as all members should.
The Speaker: Is the leader of the third party rising on this point of order?
J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker.
I think there is probably some legitimacy to both complaints. Questions at times have been long, and answers have been longer. But we should all remember that it's the Speaker who we should look to for rulings on whether questions are in order, or whether they are being followed in form. We, at least, will be prepared to look to you for guidance rather than to the government House Leader for direction as to protocol regarding questions and answers.
The Speaker: I have heard three submissions on the point of order. I thank hon. members, and as they will perhaps remember from my comments of last week, I too have some concerns that questions be brief and replies be brief, and that neither be argumentative. Perhaps with this discussion today, all members will review some fairly extensive guidelines in the expanded standing orders that will assist us with the next question period.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table a letter that will clarify an issue that was raised in Monday's question period.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: In tabling this letter, if I can briefly....
The Speaker: Hon. member, you may only table the letter and perhaps use a few words to describe the purpose; by a few, I mean five or six. That's all that is permitted on a tabling.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I think I was only up to my third word when I was cut off. This is simply a letter from Leith R. S. Dewar, M.D., who is the patient I referred to on Monday.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Okanagan West, which I want to respond to today. The first question was: "Can the Attorney General advise the House whether to his knowledge any minister, past or present, has had his or her legal costs paid for by the taxpayer for any personal lawsuits, where that person had been named as a defendant?" The answer is no.
The second question was: "Government policy, as of November 5, 1991, indicated that there would be no monetary assistance paid to any minister for such expenses other than by cabinet approval through OIC. Can the Attorney General tell us whether that policy has been quietly changed by cabinet?" There has been no change.
Hon. A. Petter presented the audited financial statements for the Provincial Capital Commission for the period ending March 31, 1991.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to table a petition on the old growth forest in the Caren Range.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to table a position from over 5,350 persons who oppose the closing of the B.C. Transportation Museum in Cloverdale.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Before proceeding into orders of the day, I want to say in relationship to the application of the hon. Minister of Forests to move an adjournment of the House under standing order 35 that I make the following observations.
The minister has asked that this House set aside its normal business to discuss what he describes as "a grave environmental and economic threat to our province arising by virtue of the Asian gypsy moth to British Columbia." He states that the government has made a commitment to give the public ample notice of spraying, and further states that yesterday the cabinet declared an environmental emergency and accelerated the program of aerial spraying of a pesticide over specified areas of the province. It would appear that under the original permit, the federal Department of Agriculture had the right to commence application of
[ Page 644 ]
the pesticide on April 26, 1992. However, we were advised yesterday that based on technical advice received, this program needs to be commenced as early as April 15, 1992. The minister further advises this House that the undertaking to give the public ample notice militates in favour of the subject matter being debated in this House on an urgent basis.
The hon. House Leader of the official opposition raises two objections as to why this matter does not qualify under the provisions of standing order 35: (1) the fact that the cabinet made a decision yesterday declaring an environmental emergency does not constitute the matter as urgent and pressing; (2) the fact that a private member's statement on Asian gypsy moth appears on the orders for the day for discussion on Friday offends the anticipation rule in standing order 35.
With respect to the second objection, I am satisfied, on a close examination of standing order 35(10)(d), that a private member's statement does not qualify as "a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House or with respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn."
Dealing with the first objection, the hon. House Leader of the official opposition argues that as the subject matter has been raised in oral question period and has been the subject of a ministerial statement, no emergency of an urgent nature exists, and "it's not really a crisis at all." The minister presenting the application argues that the necessity to commence the spraying process within seven days of the standing order 35 application, combined with the declaration of an environmental emergency, has changed the nature of the matter to an urgent one. He further urges that the undertaking to give this matter the widest possible publicity brings the issue clearly within the parameters of standing order 35 as a definite matter of urgent public importance deserving of debate in this House.
I wish to digress here and make some general observations that I hope will be of assistance to the House. One of the reasons the Chair was unable to render its decision on Wednesday, when this matter was first raised, was the particular difficulty posed by this application. An examination of the history of applications under standing order 35 demonstrates that few qualified under the stringent rules applicable. The Chair notes that in 1985 standing order 35 was substantially amended, and subsection (6) now provides that a qualifying matter may not only be debated on the day on which the matter is raised but may be set down for hearing the following day. The clear wording of this standing order assists the Chair in relation to giving its opinion to the House today, as opposed to yesterday. The Chair also observes that in borderline cases, presiding officers have historically rendered a decision that will permit further consideration of the matter by the House.
While the Chair has some doubts in this matter and acknowledges the technical objections raised by the House Leader of the official opposition, the Chair is persuaded, in these somewhat unique circumstances, that the matter raised by the minister is in order and is of urgent public importance. Accordingly, I shall, with the general consent of the House, waive reading the statement aloud, but I shall ask, under standing order 35(4), whether the member has leave to move the motion. Hon. members will understand that if objection is taken to the minister moving the motion, the final decision as to whether or not this requested debate will proceed will be decided by this House.
[2:45]
I will now ask the House if at a yet to be appointed time the minister would have leave to move the motion.
I have heard ayes. Then I would request that the minister be permitted to move that motion, signalling the debate to begin, at 4:30 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
On vote 24: minister's office: $398,558 (continued).
The Chair: Shall vote 24 pass? I realize, hon. members, that you're not familiar with the procedure. When I ask that question, either someone is on their feet, or the vote passes and we move on to the next vote.
D. Jarvis: Sorry I was so slow getting up on my feet there, but I was waiting for the nays to come. I adjourned the debate on education prior to the lunch hour.
Before I go on to discuss the moneys allotted for the operation of the schools in the North Vancouver district -- I will deal with that later, to sum up -- I would ask the minister to bring us up to date on the previous questions I asked. Will you be removing the portables from specifically Dorothy Lynas and Sherwood Park schools? Will there be an additional four classrooms put in the Dorothy Lynas school? Are there plans for a new elementary school in the North Vancouver district 44? With the fourth one, I was asking where the $582 million came from, because I couldn't understand it in the budget. The estimates showed it was $460-odd million, and there's $100 million plus or minus. I'll sit down and wait for your answers.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just perhaps discuss the capital envelope that I talked about today and give the member some responses.
First of all, the capital envelope is part of a long-term planning process that involves cooperative and collaborative work between the ministry and the school districts where the school districts set out their plans. The member has noted some of the school capital needs of his district and in his riding in his remarks today. Each year the government makes a decision based on the consultations between the ministry and the school districts, and based on the government's capacity on a capital amount that will be authorized.
[ Page 645 ]
It's not in the blue book. It's not in the budget papers that you see. The financing for that capital envelope comes out of the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority, which fundamentally manages a debt portfolio for our schools. If you look in the blue book you will see under, I think, it's vote 26 the debt-servicing charges which are the flow-through amounts from the provincial treasury to local districts that fully cover the cost of writing down the capital works of that district over a 20-year period.
It is a flow-through. It is a cost that government undertakes virtually entirely. There is some capital funding that districts may have available if they have capital assets they own or partly own with the provincial government, and there are sometimes shared projects. All capital projects have to be approved by the ministry, but those negotiations go on as well.
Now I know the member -- as is every member of this House -- is very eager to know just exactly what is in the capital envelope for his or her school district, depending on the jurisdictions of the members. I am very pleased to tell the member that, although I can't tell him today, he won't have to wait too long for that information, nor will any other member.
One of my goals as a new minister was to ensure that school boards had information that allowed them to manage their districts in the most timely way and manner. My request of all of the parties to the decisions around the capital envelope was that we would know what it was and be in a position to announce to every school district, at the earliest possible time, their capital funding for next year. I'm pleased to say that my ministry officials advise me that if all goes well, that information will be in everyone's hands within two weeks. We have set a goal for ourselves to try to make that time-frame even shorter. I would note that's a different pattern from the last couple of years when the information has dribbled out. I believe we will be about two and a half months earlier this year in making those capital grant announcements. That's significant because many school districts want to stage their capital projects, and also one of the most effective times for them to be building -- not only because the weather is better but because the kids aren't there -- is in the summertime. By virtue of districts having that information now, they will be able to proceed.
I might note also that some districts have information about projects that have been approved which come out of last year's capital envelope. We always leave some contingency. We don't approve right up to the last dollar at this particular time, because there are factors that need to be accommodated and contingencies throughout the year. But the money is fully allocated within the fiscal year. We have just allocated the last of last year's capital envelope and are happy that next year's capital envelope will be announced in very short order.
D. Jarvis: I'm glad we're talking about allocation. Probably the most disturbing factor, in my opinion, is the way the moneys are allocated to the various districts -- but naturally and more specifically to School District 44.
We're presently in the throes of a mounting deficit problem over there, and this crisis is leading to the cancellation of innumerable programs, teachers and support staffs. I have been inundated with calls from people who are deeply concerned about the lack of funding that will lead to the cancellation or withdrawal of these programs. Some of these programs have been in our curriculum close to 20-plus years. In fact, one of the programs is now in its twenty-third year.
Many of these have been innovations strictly by North Vancouver district 44 and have been considered really worthwhile programs, as evidenced by the continued calls over the years from other districts throughout the province, asking how to start up these programs. If there are going to be cancellations, it will be rather embarrassing or hard on our district to be taking these calls -- considering that we are cancelling the programs.
This is what I was going to try to lead up to, because I believe that there are other areas that are actually overfunded. They are in the position where they can contact us and ask how to do our innovative programs that you are leading up to or assisting in cancelling, as far as we are concerned. So go the inequities of the financing formula.
The records do show that this government was against us previously, and it's now quite surprising that you are proposing to support this funding formula over at least the next two years. The proposed underfunding, or the underfunding that is actually occurring, is going to cause considerable problems in our school boards, as you are aware. Although it's not the school board's official summary, I wanted to read a list of the programs that are probably in the position of being cut imminently.
The fact that we are having the estimates now is rather untimely, because the school board hasn't made up its budget. I believe I am right on the money with my list here, or close to it. If it's not exact, maybe it's 10 percent or 20 percent out. Even if it's 1 percent out, it's still rather unfortunate.
We're looking at a situation for educational programs. We're going to have a class-size decrease from kindergarten to grade 12; special education programs are going to be cut out; English as a second language is going to be cut out; bands and strings, which has been around for over ten years on the North Shore; French as a second language, which has been approximately ten years on the North Shore; community schools -- that was an innovation of the North Vancouver school system started in the seventies; consultant services; an outdoor school that has been going since '67 is going to be closed; and the number of teaching positions for those educational programs amounts to approximately 95 teachers who will be lopped off.
In our administration end, we are going to be faced with reducing the school base administration, and that will be ten administration staff; plus the district administration staff will be cut down by another seven people. We are approaching over 100 now. Our special programs, as I said, will be cut out: outdoor school, community schools; the Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre is supposed to be cancelled; the district administra-
[ Page 646 ]
tion office will be cancelled. The numbers of sports staff for those items are going to total 22. We have other budget reductions that they are planning to go for, but I won't deal with them right at the moment.
[3:00]
I would like to say that the current fund fiscal year is going to register an almost $7 million deficit. We have already had $4,500 cut out of our budget -- and that's on these proposed reductions here. As a result of all these measures, we're going to look at things like library books. They have now stopped ordering any more library books -- not until next fall. Paper is actually being rationed in the various schools. Next year the school board will register a predicted $10 million deficit -- that's quite a shortfall. The government has finally -- well, no, I won't say it. I think this also has to do with the basic block funding, and it's insufficient on the North Shore.
The other thing is: on examining the situation of the funding, I find that there is a gross inequity taking place within district 44. The previous administration, prior to yourselves, used to use the two communities -- the city and district of North Vancouver -- as separate entities for block funding purposes. In other words, they calculated them separately. At that time the district was the worst area in the whole province. That is to say, they paid the highest taxes in the whole province on a per capita basis. In the city it was a little bit better, so they basically evened out a bit. But this levelling off was changed about three years ago, when the previous administration started to fudge the statistics, by generalizing for all of district 44 by joining the two populations of the city and the district of North Vancouver. This was only to reduce the overall number so that it did not look so bad. Well, we can't change this block funding, but we can change the equalization formula, I believe.
Again, we pay more for our school taxes per capita in the North Vancouver area than anywhere else in the metro area. At the same time, with this equalization formula we receive less per capita than anywhere else in the metro area. It's simply not fair, as far as we're concerned. You are penalizing this district, which has been innovative in a lot of their programs. The people in the district of North Vancouver value their education. There are people that actually move into our area -- believe it or not -- for the educational system, and because of the programs that they propose to give. Why do they do this? Well, no one knows.
But what I want to say is that the situation is such that we are again being penalized. Why don't the poorer areas who are not so innovative...? Maybe that's the wrong expression; maybe I should say not motivated the same way. They do not want to implement these programs, but we do, and therefore we feel we are being penalized for it. They are not willing to pay for it, but we are.
This government, I'll remind you again, while in opposition, was against this formula, and it's now in their power to change it. This formula by the government is only for another three years, I understand. It's got to go; it has to be rescinded. It is compounding our deficit over the next two years. I understand this formula was to cost us about 4 percent this year. We are going to get about 96 percent. When you take the $4.5 million and compound it over the next couple of years, it will be up to $10.4 million again. That's at 10 percent compounded interest. The math just doesn't work out.
So I ask the minister: will she rescind the equalization formula? Failing that, would she adjust the formula so at least we would get 100 percent of the block funding and not 96 percent? Or maybe consider a comprehensive overhaul of the whole school funding system. We understand that there is about $80 million to $125 million in a sock somewhere. They could give us the $10 million now, and we could create a stability fund.
I would recommend at this time that you also consider returning the local taxation back to the authority of the individual boards. It appears that the present system is completely irrational. How can a board be fiscally responsible to make up a budget when they have no control over where the money is coming from?
If we had a few of those changes, we'd be back into being responsible business people. We are going to balance this budget some day, let's hope. The short-term solution of cutting out organizations or human resources in tough times often yields only long-term strategic nightmares. Good management does not look for the easiest solution; it seeks the best solution.
As I said before, the equity of this province is in our children, and we must protect this knowledge base, because skilled people are the ones who will drive us into this next phase of growth, not government agendas. If you could answer those few questions, it would be appreciated.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I seek leave of this House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, fellow members, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to this House 40 members of the grade 7 class from the Sacred Heart School in Ladner. I had the pleasure of speaking to them just a few moments ago, and I'm really pleased that they are here at this time while the education estimates are being debated. I ask my fellow members to make them welcome.
D. Schreck: I join with my friend the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour in expressing considerable concerns about School District 44. My constituents have also approached me with respect to School District 44. I've met with members of the North Vancouver Teachers Association, the full board of school trustees, members of CUPE, who represent workers at the North Vancouver School Board, as well as with many concerned parents.
I am not quite as sure as my friend in opposition about quick solutions. I have shared many of my concerns with representatives from School District 44. I have been told that my school district pays the highest school taxes in the province and that there are problems
[ Page 647 ]
with a fair distribution of the tax burden. I have to confess that I have never met anyone who fully understands school financing or all the complexities of the school tax formula.
In her remarks I hope the minister can give some indication of the direction the ministry is taking in looking at these questions of equity between school districts. I find the remarks of the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour a little confusing, when we talk about equity. My concern is that if we place too much of the tax responsibility on local initiative, local taxation or local decision-making, we have a school system where the wealthier the tax base, the higher the quality of the programs that can be offered. My friends in Port Alberni or Trail would be considerably disadvantaged relative to my friends in West Vancouver, for instance.
When we deal with this question of equity, I clearly want at least my fair share for constituents in North Vancouver. But in fighting for my fair share for those constituents, I want to truly understand the difference between my partisan nature in fighting for my jurisdiction and getting some insight into what truth is. I have not heard anyone who can clearly present to me what the truth is. I'm looking very much to the guidance of the minister on what work the ministry has done on this question of equity between school districts.
When I meet with representatives from School District 44, they tell me that they are roughly $10 million short for next year. I know how far $10 million would go in some government ministries like Agriculture, Tourism or many of the small ministries. The amount of money that my school district alone requires would be a major windfall for that entire ministry for the entire province. Nevertheless, I very much recognize that my constituents in School District 44 have a problem which they quantify at $10 million.
Mr. Chair, when I deal with representatives from School District 44, I'm disturbed when some of them admit to me that a great deal of the financial crisis they face has been caused by having to honour the collective agreement which they negotiated and which costed out, in the papers that they submitted to the compensation stabilization commissioner, at 18 percent over two years. I asked the trustees to explain to me their intent when they entered into that collective agreement. In representing my constituents or putting forward concerns to the minister from School District 44, it is not my intention to blame the trustees, the teachers or any of the players. There's a long history here. I think we all have to bear our share of the burden.
I know that the minister and my government are doing the best possible job to be fair and deal with the financial problems we are facing. My heart goes out to my friends in School District 44 in dealing with their very difficult problems.
I would like the minister to comment on whether she really thinks it is appropriate for the provincial government to intervene and tell the local school board what their priorities should be -- how they should deal with these difficult problems. I say that because only last evening, when I was on the North Shore, a person who's involved in making these difficult decisions said to me that perhaps government should intervene, take the decision-making away from the school board and tell them what programs are to be frozen and what is to be chopped in order to take the heat off so the tough decisions don't have to be made there. I ask the minister to quantify this equity problem. What is the intent of her ministry? Is it the intent of her ministry to give school boards global decision-making responsibility and then share the burden of dealing within those budgets, or is it the intent of this ministry to remove decision-making power from the local school boards and make those difficult decisions for the boards?
Hon. A. Hagen: It is interesting that in the course of the early stage of these estimates we have heard from three members that represent the North Shore and one school district.
I want to comment at the outset that the ministry is concerned about equity and fairness and consistency in all of the districts of the province. To all of these members, I met with your school board very early in January. It was either the second or the third school district that I met with. I had an opportunity at that time to discuss the concerns that the members of your board had in dealing with their budget.
[3:15]
Since that time I met with school districts from all around the province -- more from the lower mainland than the interior. With winter it was not all that easy for them to travel to me or for me to travel to them. There are concerns. The situation we found in the provincial government we are finding in local governments as well. As I said in my remarks this morning, decisions that were taken by the former government and by school districts are all contributing to the budget difficulties that people face at this particular stage. Every district is going through a very difficult time in setting its priorities and making its decisions. I've been in the chairs of those school-board chairpeople and trustees over a period of 10 years, including periods when governments actually reduced funding to school districts, so I have some appreciation of the kind of challenges that are faced when boards find that they do not have the means to do all that they would like to do within the budgets that they're allocated.
The job of the ministry is first and foremost to ensure that with the dollars we have available there is fairness and consistency across the system. I believe that the block funding system in and of itself provides a good basis for that. Contrary to what some of the members on the other side of the House have said, when I was on your side of the House, I spoke in support of block funding, because what it does do is leave to boards the opportunity to make their own decisions about how their districts are going to be run.
Those decisions fundamentally are these: they decide what programs they're going to have in their districts, and what staffing and organization their districts will have to provide those programs; they decide in concert with their teaching and CUPE or other support staff groups what the collective agreements are going to be in terms of the remuneration that is there and the contracts that they will sign. Those are the
[ Page 648 ]
fundamental elements of every school district's budgets.
Over the past three years every school district has been working within that framework in a way that is the same for every school district. There is that consistency within the approach. As I said this morning to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, when we look at how those fundings are disbursed, we look at them in the context of the whole province.
When I came into office, I recognized that there was a need to do what I could do around providing stability, and for that reason I did, in effect, cancel equalization for this year. As I noted this morning, the effect of that is that North Vancouver as a district has 14 percent of the special purpose grants that were necessary for that cancellation to take place.
What I think I hear the members saying today is that I should now in some singular way deal with the decisions that have been taken by North Vancouver and make some arrangement that is specific to North Vancouver. I don't believe that this is something that is in my power or is a reasonable thing to ask me to do. North Vancouver has an excellent school system and has made many choices about what it will offer within that school system. It has made decisions over the last three years of block funding about how it will manage its system.
North Vancouver is like a number of boards which, at the time of our coming into government, faced the need to pay the full accounting on the agreements that they had signed with their teachers. They, along with other boards, now have that agreement that they're honouring, plus the full flow-through costs of those agreements.
As a school trustee, one of the things that I learned was that when you signed a collective agreement, for the first four months it didn't cost you very much, because you only had four months of a year if it was a two-year agreement; for the next year it was going to cost you a little more. When you signed an agreement, you needed to look ahead at the implications of that. Those are local decisions, and some of those decisions are playing a role now in boards' difficulties in managing their budgets.
The issue is one that does not lend itself to a singular response to an individual district. I have indicated that it is timely for us to review the whole method of our funding, and I know there is a debate that needs to occur around the restoration of local taxation.
But both of those matters, as anyone who has sat at a school board, a college council table or any other body knows, need to be done carefully and with a good deal of analysis and thoughtful preparation, so that what we have in place is going to serve us well. That is what we intend to do in the coming months in preparation for next year's decisions around budgeting, taxation and all other matters that relate to school finance.
F. Gingell: Madam Minister, as you know, I was a school trustee in Delta from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, at a time when the Delta School District was growing at a rate faster than any other district in the province. At that time we felt some concerns about continuing to build more and more schools, while we were not absolutely certain what demand there would be on those facilities in later years. The truth of the matter is that in the early 1990s, some of the concerns we had at that time have come to fruition.
I noted when you were speaking this morning that you have included in the 1992-93 estimates an amount of $5.8 million for capital facilities planning. I'm wondering, Madam Minister, whether you intend to spend any of those funds on consideration of alternative approaches to the provision of school facilities, such as the program known as 45-15, where schools are put into a form of semester system. By careful scheduling, the capacity of each school can be increased by one third with substantial cost savings coming from that.
I would just like to say, before I sit down to hear your response, that when we looked at this in some depth at that time, we were convinced there were very good educational reasons for considering such a program. There were very real benefits to be gained in the delivery of education services, as well as the obvious savings that would arise. I'm interested in whether you have considered this or might do so.
Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, the decisions around the organization of the school year are in the authority of school districts.
There was a mention today of the Cariboo experiment, which is around a different year's calendar. It's quite an interesting one, because it is organized around the forest industry and the time people are taking their holidays or working in the woods.
Other school districts have organized within the traditional school year, but on different methods than either the full calendar or the traditional semester calendar. All of those options are open to school districts, and we would be highly supportive of them. In terms of there being a kind of ministry-down agenda in that regard: in my time, certainly, we have not formally discussed that with school districts, but I think there is merit in considering many of these ideas. I know the former minister, Tony Brummet, often had interesting ideas about how schools could perhaps be combined with other kinds of building uses as a means of looking at ways to make good use of our capital stock.
The other idea to think of here, of course -- and we talked about this a bit this morning -- was the community use of the school and some shared funding that comes into that not just from the Education envelope, but perhaps from the municipality -- their parks and rec programs or from Social Services or from Health. Those are other ways in which the building can be used. I believe, too, apropos to the discussion this morning with Mr. Strand and the issues around training, that the life-long learning needs of a community are important.
I used to teach in Delta one night a week a long time ago. I taught night school in one of your schools in the sixties. That was an excellent use of facilities to the betterment of the people of the community. I don't think that anything limits us except our own imagination and also the willingness to involve the community in discussions. These kinds of decisions should not be
[ Page 649 ]
made without the community having input and accepting them. They're no different from some of the other changes we might consider. We need to vet them and discuss them so that there's broad acceptance.
D. Symons: Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few comments I would like to make here, and a lot of them concern where the real problem in education lies, and that's the funding system of education. I think there's a great problem with the lack of predictability and stability that the boards have to work with here, when they're not too sure year to year exactly how much they're going to have on a long-term basis. I think that is of real concern in order to effectively plan the running of that school system. The block funding formula is adjusted and makes minor adjustments each year. Even though it may only be a part of a percentage point, it means a lot of dollars to a school board. It means programs, supplies or maintenance that can or cannot be carried out. I think this is something that really has to be addressed.
There's inadequate funding through the block formula right now, I believe, and part of this stems from the way the block funding was set up. When the block funding was initially set up, school districts such as mine and Richmond -- School District 38 -- were run very efficiently. We had a school board that looked after the interests of its community and the interests of the taxpayer very well. Unfortunately, when the block funding formula was set up, it was set up on the basis of the moneys you had spent within that school district in the years previous to the setting up of the block funding formula. For a district like Richmond that happened to manage their affairs very well financially, they were done in by the block formula to begin with, and it's taken years for them to begin to slowly climb up. They have not yet reached the level of appropriate funding that districts that were a little more liberal in their spending of money before block funding are still at today.
[3:30]
I'm wondering if the minister might comment a little bit on that initial setup of block funding, and how a district like Richmond and a few others are going to manage to catch up on the fact that they were fiscally responsible to begin with and therefore suffered because of it.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'll speak to the member's comment about predictability, because it is an important issue. It was one of the matters that I very much wanted to take into account as we were dealing with matters this year. I do believe that it is important in our review to look to the possibility of some multi-year funding. It's a big operation. In any area, $3 billion is a huge amount of money; it's beyond our ken to think of what that translates into. Even if we look at it in terms of districts, many of which have budgets in the $1 million range and better, it's a lot of financial resources to manage. There is merit in us looking at a way in which there could be both predictability with, still, responsibility for boards to make those local decisions.
However, there are a lot of misunderstandings about the current funding formula, and one that I do want to note is that districts such as the one that the member speaks about, Richmond, may have benefited from the block formula in the sense that they shared in some of the resources that other districts had chosen through taxation to provide. That was brought into the pool, and fundamentally all the other districts shared in that. So in some ways that equalization did occur, and all of those districts have been brought up to a level of funding that is consistent right across the province.
Richmond has been a rapidly growing district, and I know that it has many needs in terms of new schools. It has been challenged. In the funding this year, in addition to the 6.5 percent increase, which is block over block, that has gone to school districts, Richmond benefits because it has some additional ESL students within that block. It benefits because it is a rapidly growing district with new schools, and there are dollars available to it for the first time because of that growth. Those representations that came to me from districts and, indeed, from ministry were aware that funding didn't always acknowledge that rapid growth. We have begun to accommodate that in the funding available this year, and the intent there is to begin that building process to ensure that we're responding fairly to all of the districts' specific pressures, whether they be ESL, walk limits, rapid growth -- things that all districts have as part of their challenge of managing for their children.
D. Symons: I thank you very much for that answer. I am aware that the district is receiving more because of the change in enrolment throughout the year. That's a very positive move on the part of the ministry. I want to come back to that in a few minutes.
I have a few other topics I would like to bring up before that time, and one of them deals again with the concerns I have about the block funding. I don't think the block funding accounts for the percent increase in the salary of the teachers within that district. I would like to be corrected on that if I am wrong. Since salaries form a very high proportion of the spending of a school board, it is very important that somehow this must be taken into consideration. I believe it takes into consideration the increments teachers receive but not necessarily the salary increases they might get. So if I'm wrong on that, I'd like to be corrected.
Also, I'm not sure that the block funding requires the information when it's worked out, because I believe block funding is worked out in the month of February, and the school board doesn't have to set its budget until April 20. Therefore there's a large difference between when the school board is required to set its budget and the time when the block funding is set for that district, which rather limits its ability to manoeuvre during negotiations, because the funding is set before they've gone to negotiation.
On what I have here then, the block funding seems to be done without the school board's input or knowledge of what the school board's budget is going to be for that year. They seem to set the funding first and then the school board sets its budget later -- and this seems
[ Page 650 ]
to be a backward way of doing things; after that the cabinet sets the school board tax rate and the property tax in each of the districts. It just seems backward that the block funding amount is set first, then the board sets its budget, and then we find out what our tax mill rate is going to be.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm a little puzzled about predictability. On the one hand we're being asked to make things predictable, and on the other hand it's being suggested that we should wait until the very last minute to let people know what their block funding is going to be. I want to just make it very clear that there are two elements with this.
First of all, boards know what they have from the previous year; they know about enrolment. We have made some changes this year so that districts like the hon. member's district, which is experiencing rapid growth, will be able to predict more quickly what additional funds will be available as those new students arrive. There will be additional funding throughout the school year.
The block of funds is there. That's been there for three years. The increase this year is an increase at least in line with the rate of inflation, which is one of the predictors in terms of what is added.
In respect to teachers' salaries, one of the strongest recommendations that was made by the Sullivan royal commission was that the provincial government shouldn't interfere with the outcomes of bargaining; that it should be free collective bargaining. For that reason, the block funding system has been set up with that in mind. There was a date at which the salaries of school districts were calculated. It was a date before people knew the block funding was coming in. It was a date that reflected the salaries that were in place at that particular time. Collective bargaining, with the exception of Bill 82, has proceeded since that time in a free way between boards and their employees as they wish it to be, because it is the wish of boards and employees to bargain individually in those local school districts, and then to have the outcomes of those bargainings in salaries and working conditions as something that they do manage.
However, as the member noted, the block funding does recognize the experience of teachers. It recognizes the increments of teachers. It recognizes the upgrading of their credentials through training. So all of those factors related to the greater experience that teachers acquire over their careers are in fact factored into the block. But the block was not intended to be a pass-through for the results of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not something that this government enters into in any direct way; it is between the school districts and their employee groups. The outcomes of that collective bargaining are then outcomes that they take in the context of the resources that are available, just as other employers and employees do, whether it's in the public sector, the private sector, like the IWA, or in other public sector unions. So that's the basis for that particular way of dealing with it.
I go back to the point that Barry Sullivan, coming out of the history of the eighties, said we should stay out of the collective bargaining domain in the provincial government. It should be something that is bargained by the parties. That was the system at the time, and they were responsible for their bargaining, which is something that free collective bargaining is clearly intended to accomplish.
D. Symons: I still have concerns with that, and I guess we'll just have to differ on this, because I feel that the amount of money that the board has to play with -- and that's not the right term to use -- to negotiate with its staff.... I believe in Richmond the figure for salaries is now somewhere around 90-some-odd percent of their money. They've managed to keep cutting down the non-salary items until almost 90 percent of their budget goes in some way or other to salaries. When the amount of money that the board has through block funding is there, the amount of money they have been given certainly limits their hands in how they're going to be able to negotiate. So I think the ministry has intruded into negotiations. I'll leave that aside, because I think we differ on our version of that.
The ministry, in a paper that went out on February 26, talks here about: "The preliminary block of funds is based on the sum of enrolment projections confirmed or amended by school districts. The ministry anticipates that the enrolment projections used to project preliminary allocations are conservative." I want to emphasize that word there. "Additional funds are available to increase the final block of funds to reflect actual enrolments reported by school districts." My concern is on the word "conservative," because it seems to be a way in which if you're very conservative, you can in effect save some money back, hold it back, gaining the interest and so forth while the school boards are going a little bit short and suffering the consequences of it. It concerns me about how conservative these might be.
Then it talks about: "Additional funds are available." I'm wondering if you might be able to tell me how much money is put aside for these additional funds. You must have a contingency fund set there to make up the difference in case these conservative funds are somewhat short.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me go back first of all to the issue of the projections for school districts. School districts have a great deal of latitude in informing my ministry about their projections. In fact, in many instances the school districts themselves are conservative, because they don't want to overestimate the students that may come. If any of the districts want to amend their projections with good reason to anticipate, that is something that the ministry is open to assist them with. So those decisions are decisions that are local school district decisions to which we respond with the dollars that flow related to the number of students.
Yes, there is money that is in a contingency for enrolment, as there always is, and this year that amount is $80 million. The projection we have of increased enrolment is 3.5, in new students. Within that there is $4.5 million for children who may arrive later on in the year who have never been funded before. The school
[ Page 651 ]
district just had to pick up the cost of those children, carry it for whatever the time was until the next calculation.
We've also -- and I don't know if I can explain exactly how this works -- through the ministry's good offices worked out what's called "recalc" -- a recalculation of the funding that will be available. So school districts will know very early after a magic date -- September 30th, their enrolment count date -- how much more money is coming. I know that when I came in as minister, that information went out toward the end of December, just before the Christmas holidays. We want very much for that to be known to school districts, for those dollars to flow and for that recalculation to be a better system than it has been. We recognize that is a resource which growing districts, particularly, need to have and know about. There is money aside, and it is designated for that growth.
[3:45]
Let me just clarify. Figures fly by. There's 3.5 and 4.5. There's a 3.5 percent increase in enrolment projected in British Columbia. Just to put that into numbers, last year 18,000 new youngsters came into the school system. It's an enormous increase, even across 75 school districts. As I say, we have $4.5 million set aside for those rapidly growing districts that may be seeing enrolment growth over the next several months and after September 30, which we know will help some of those districts a well.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for those answers. I will get back to the recalculation figures in a moment.
Carrying on with my question of a moment ago, obviously these adjustments are made in September, as you say. You make the recalculation. I'm wondering when the boards actually get the money. Do they get it as soon as this recalculation figure comes up? Or is it paid...? From the information I was given, I would gather that our school district has not yet received any of this money. Am I wrong in that information?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, you are wrong. Your board would have received additional funding at the end of December. I might note that at that same time I did make a special learning resources grant available to all school districts, again with the recognition of growing districts and the fact that for them to provide the range of learning resources for new children in the school systems, they faced a greater challenge.
The amounts that went to those growing districts were weighted to provide them with significantly more money than for school districts experiencing no growth. That was a one-time grant. I don't recall the amount that was assigned to your district, but your district would have received both those amounts by the end of the school year.
The other thing is that once school districts know what their recalculation is, it's knowing that they've got the money. They haven't got the money for next year either, but they know what their block is. Knowing as early as possible what the number of new students is and what that translates into in terms of additional resources is important. That's what we have facilitated, so districts will know earlier. They'll be able to figure it out themselves and will be able to plan accordingly for those students and their accommodation.
D. Symons: Continuing on with the recalculations, some figures that I have here would indicate that frequently these recalculation figures would indicate that somehow the fall calculations are unreliable, because when it's done again in December, the figures change again. What I'm noting here is that for December 1991 it would appear that Vancouver had a recalculation that amounted to 2.1 percent of its budget. Again, it doesn't sound like a very large percentage, but that amounts to quite a large amount of money -- in the millions of dollars -- in the budget for the Vancouver School Board. I notice that for a school district like Lillooet, much smaller than Vancouver in size, there was a 7.1 percent recalculation figure involved.
Can the minister assure the school boards throughout the province that there are going to be more realistic enrolment figures, etc., used, so that maybe these recalculation figures can be much smaller and give them a more definite view of what they're going to have for the year, rather than having to adjust it throughout the year?
B. Copping: Coming from a growth district, there's an area of particular concern. It certainly happened when I was chairperson of the Coquitlam School District. It was the issue of Crown lands. At that time we saw a piece of land where a school was planned go from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Of course that affects all the taxpayers. I also had a group from the Heritage Mountain Community Association come to me a few weeks ago expressing the same concern. What I am asking is: is there or will there be any ongoing discussion, along with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, to try to sort out this Crown land issue with regard to setting it aside for school sites?
Hon. A. Hagen: There are two questions, then -- one from the member from Richmond and one from the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. Let me just turn to the first question, because we have been dealing with those issues.
Your point's well taken, hon. member, in terms of trying to wear a kind of visionary hat. I can remember, too, that business of Statistics Canada's, the ministry's and the district's projections and trying to balance that out. I think everybody does it to the very best of their ability. But the other thing that comes into the amount of money that goes to the school district is: are there some special characteristics of that particular student?
You're seeing in your district a pretty significant growth in English-as-a-second-language students, and those students bring some additional dollar resources to assist them through their English-as-a-second-language training. The same thing can apply if we have in that mix a student who has some very special needs.
It's not just a neat, quick and easy calculation that you can make. I assure you that the ministry and school districts are working very hard to accommodate that. We really track that very carefully. We have some other
[ Page 652 ]
things that we could do, which might mean that there would be less money flow into the system altogether, but more predictability. I hope that we can discuss all those matters as we look at the whole review and try to figure out, around the stability, predictability and fairness issues, how we might deal with that.
And around the accountability issues too: what's the ministry accountable for and what might be the accountability of local taxpayers if local taxation were to be a part of the total funding available to school districts? We have a lot of people here who have council experience, school board experience or who are interested in education. I think we all recognize that it's not just some magic matter, but something that requires the disciplined and careful approach which we intend to bring to it.
The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain raises a very important policy issue about the way in which Crown land -- which is our land, which all the taxpayers own -- may be made available. We are working on a protocol with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on that matter. While we've raised that issue and because it's in your area, hon. member, I believe, too, that we have some broader issues. I remember the horror I felt in this House when Burke Mountain was sold holus-bolus for $63 million without any designation whatsoever for schools. You would know better than I, but I think five or six schools will eventually need to be built in that area. I think that 25 or 30 percent of the total income the province received from the sale of that wonderfully valuable and beautiful piece of property will now go back out in buying back our land for school purposes. That's something that we need to avoid.
We also have some other issues to look at with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, around development and whether sites might well be reserved for school purposes as they are for parks. We know that where you put schools and community facilities together, you get the kind of thing that we've been talking about: a community school that makes good use of related facilities. There's a crossover there.
All of those are policy issues that are on our working agenda. I would welcome any ideas and suggestions that members might have to assist us in that discussion, because we really do want to ensure that the siting and cost implications of schools are kept within the most manageable of budgets.
D. Symons: Just before I ask my last question, I would like to thank you very much for your clear and direct answers to our questions. I appreciate that very much.
This deals specifically with Richmond and about four or five other rapid-growth districts. We've already covered new students. I appreciate the fact that the ministry has recognized the problem of students who are added during the year, which increases enrolment, and that it is moving to address that problem.
You made allusion to ESL students. I assume they also are being addressed in that way -- that as they come through the year, they're being adequately funded. That has been a problem in the past as well.
Another group that's in Richmond and other districts is special-needs students. This becomes a problem, particularly in urban areas. They start offering a lot in the way of medical assistance to people. Families with that sort of problem will congregate there, because they can get the medical advice and help that they need for their special needs. We have quite a number in Richmond. I gather that special-needs funding -- as it is funded now by the block formula -- is capped at about 3.5 percent of the population. After that the school board only gets the regular per-student funding, rather than the increased amount that special-needs students get up to that point. Is there any motion on the part of the ministry to look into the actual needs and numbers of students rather than having a capped figure there?
Hon. A. Hagen: There's quite a wide range of resources that go into a school district to assist them in providing a challenging education for each and every child. That reflects what I talked about this morning, which is the diverse makeup of our student body.
Back again for just a moment to English as a second language. This member's school district may well be the recipient of some additional dollars over and above what's in the block for English-as-a-second-language students. If there are a fair number coming in through the year, the school district has the task, working with parents and teachers, of assessing where those students can be best placed to enhance their learning. There's a cost associated with that when there are significant numbers of students coming in, and we've recognized that. Additional funding will be targeted to some districts, particularly around the lower mainland, because we're seeing an increase in English-as-a-second-language students in those districts. It used to be that Vancouver pretty well had the bulk of those youngsters, but I've seen figures of up to 10 percent in some communities, and perhaps even in excess of that. Those additional dollars are there.
When it comes to students with special needs, there is a whole range of ways with which we try to provide a realistic dollar amount that blends with the per-pupil cost. What we need to remember here is that we're looking at those students being integrated into the classroom but requiring additional services. Those figures vary. You may have a highly-dependent youngster that requires a teaching assistant or an aide.
Coming again out of the royal commission, we've also worked on what we call protocols with other ministries. Dollars are targeted for services that blend into the school in terms of where they're offered -- maybe to provide health-related services or social support for children.
The important thing for us to remember when we talk about the special needs of children is that every child is special, and every child has needs. Our approach has been to recognize that there is a mix, and to provide a blend of resources and to ask the school districts to work out individual educational programs, the best placement, the least restrictive placement and the kind of training for teachers that helps them to work with these youngsters. With that we have the support and advocacy of some very fine parent and community
[ Page 653 ]
groups that help us to understand and work in that domain.
It's very challenging because there are children in perhaps increasing numbers. Medical science is keeping babies alive who would have died years ago, and many of those children grow up with some difficulties as a result of the challenge of their birth and the early days of their lives. All of those are a part of the planning that goes into providing for special needs in a very large component of our total budget.
[4:00]
A. Warnke: A few comments right at the outset. I want to thank the hon. minister for her presentation. Frankly, I've taken quite an interest in her presentation and also those of other hon. members here in this chamber. I just have a few comments which I hope the hon. minister could respond to.
At the outset, I noticed in the throne speech and once again today.... I really want to commend the minister for the one remark she made about portables. She is quite correct, in my opinion, that something has to be done about the number of portables that we see, and not only in my area of Richmond where we have literally dozens of portables. I believe this should be done away with. As a matter of fact, teachers and principals have impressed upon me that portables ought to be replaced and for a very good reason. I'm not convinced that this contributes to the health of our young people and our children.
There are some other features, too, about schools themselves decaying. Once again, principals and teachers have impressed me about the decay that has occurred in some of our buildings. Some of our buildings have not been around that long, such as in the heart of Vancouver. Obviously something must be done there.
I have to commend the minister for drawing attention to improvements that have to be made in this direction. However, I still would like the minister as much as possible -- in general terms would be quite sufficient, of course -- to perhaps give some sort of direction or sense of where we are going in replacing portables with construction of new buildings. Some general strategy certainly would be most appreciated there. As well, I want to once again emphasize the form of funding that ensures funds will be going towards building new buildings which actually do away with portables, rather than the form of funding that just goes into some sort of general revenue and then we find out maybe a year from now that, lo and behold, the portables are still with us. I'd appreciate if the minister could make some comment.
Hon. A. Hagen: I wish I could say that the portables won't still be with us. As long as we have 18,000 more youngsters coming into school districts -- and they tend to be in growing areas where there aren't schools -- portables are going to be around. I think the important point that I want to make and emphasize again is that the ministry, in very close cooperation with school districts, has developed a five-year plan that is a rolling and updated plan. It is a plan that deals with all aspects of maintaining this incredibly valuable asset to us all. It's intended to build schools where they need to be built and build them realistically.
We're looking to projected enrolments. Often they're barely keeping pace with those enrolments, but we also know that there are peaks and valleys and we don't want to overbuild. We're looking at what we call rejuvenation. I forget the figures, but a very large number of the school buildings right across the province are old, in terms of good health for buildings. They're 30, 40 and 50 years old. I'm told that if we get at rejuvenation within a certain time in their lives, we actually save money in terms of the total scope of their lives.
I want to come back to what happened in the eighties when we didn't do that. We simply said: "Well, we're not going to be good stewards of that capital infrastructure." I'm very, very pleased that our government has simply accepted as an article of principle and action that we are going to be good stewards of that infrastructure, in addition to dealing with the new school growth.
We are not going to keep pace with what everybody would like us to do. That's the real world. Remember that until last year there was not a capital envelope that realistically looked at any kind of time when this would end. We've got a five-year window, and it's our hope that if we're able to proceed with good planning over that five years, we will see most of that backlog taken care of. That's our goal. We will do our very best, in cooperation with school districts, to work within that time-frame. I think the predictability there and the good cooperative planning is a very important part of what I was talking about this morning.
A. Warnke: I'm actually very pleased with some of the remarks made by the minister. I also want to reiterate what my colleague the member for Richmond Centre stated earlier. Members of the Richmond School Board certainly and the Richmond public generally are under the impression that we practised restraint in the early 1980s, when it was incumbent on school boards to do so, and they have felt perhaps penalized by that.
In addition to the remarks by my colleague for Richmond Centre, some of the teachers and principals have brought to my attention that we've actually faced a double jeopardy as well -- there were ceilings placed on their salaries. That's a contentious issue that I'm sure the minister is aware of. The implications are such that they have a profound effect on pensions, compared to teachers of other school districts. Teachers and principals in my area seem to feel that they're disadvantaged by this combination of restraint that was practised in the early 1980s, capping perhaps salaries and expenditures, and on top of that, the ceiling that was placed on teachers' salaries later on. The combination of the two is actually having an effect on pensions. Indeed, one individual -- a principal -- brought to my attention that the implications are not minor. They're quite major and actually produce a disincentive to retire at the same time as other teachers.
I'm just wondering whether in more of a general scope the minister has taken into account some of the
[ Page 654 ]
problems involving pensions for teachers and so forth, and whether she has any general response to that.
Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, the matter that the member for Richmond-Steveston raises comes under the jurisdiction of two other ministries. The Minister of Finance is responsible for senior administrative salaries and the freezing of those salaries, and the matter of pensions comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Government Services.
A. Cowie: Madam Minister, I have a great deal of appreciation for the budget constraints that your government has in this particular year. I know Vancouver is going through the same problems at council and at the parks board. But in our situation, of course, the school board does not have taxation directly and relies entirely on the provincial government.
My colleague for Vancouver-Langara and myself from Vancouver-Quilchena have had a delegation, which I'm sure you heard from as well. Dr. Ian Kelsey, the chairperson, and representatives of the teachers and the parents were over here a week ago. We've had many letters as well, pointing out the unique situation that Vancouver is in. We have many portables, as you mention, although I must say the latest effort at Strathcona school to get a better type of portable has in fact worked. So I think with just a little more money and better planning, portables can work in emergency situations. We have many older schools, and many of them have to be upgraded for earthquake and for asbestos removal. So Vancouver, because of its age and the number of special problems we have there with special-needs children and children who need special training in English because English is their second language.... The delegation was saying that Vancouver over the years has done an excellent job. It's known -- not just in North America, but all over the world as well -- as being very innovative in coming up with some excellent programs. They do not want to see these programs suffer more than is absolutely necessary.
They have a shortfall, as you know, Madam Minister, of $17.8 million. I would like to know if there is any possibility that they would be receiving this as a one-term emergency situation. As you also know, they have struck a figure of $30 million as being the absolutely bare bones that they would require to continue their programs. But if they don't get the $17.8 million, they will have to eliminate 260 jobs of teachers and librarians. There's a reduction in the health services. They will have to eliminate eight computer support teachers.
I guess Vancouver has been one of the foremost school boards in developing the community school program, and that has to be cut, except for two programs they do in cooperation with the parks board. I'm wondering if, Madam Minister, you will give any recognition to Vancouver because of its special problems.
Hon. A. Hagen: Again, as with other members who have spoken on behalf of their school districts, I want to acknowledge the work that Vancouver does and the challenges of that school district. Let me first of all refer to one program that we all acknowledge Vancouver piloted, and that was the school meal program -- a program we supported when we were on your side of the House and tried to encourage the provincial government to institute, recognizing that the children who don't get breakfast and lunch don't learn well. In the past fiscal year we began a school lunch program which is targeted to the schools where there was the greatest need. For Vancouver my figures are that that school lunch program for last year -- not for the coming year -- will provide them with about $663,600 annualized into next year; that will provide $1.16 million, which then presumably leaves dollars available for other school programs, because they have been providing those programs. There may be some augmentations there as well, so it may very well be an increase in programs, which Vancouver has been trying to achieve as it has looked at the effectiveness of the school lunch program.
I have heard from the Vancouver School District. They have sent me two letters. One asks for a special purpose grant for the full amount of what they are projecting in their provisional budget as a deficit, something in excess of $17 million. They have also advised me of what they call their needs budget, which is based on a canvass they have done of their school community that speaks to new programs they would like to introduce. Some of those new programs may, in time, be ones that we can work on around a shared-use basis -- not for this year, but as we plan ahead. Many of them are targeted to the community school concept, where the school district and the community and, if possible, the province work together to ensure that the community school works.
[4:15]
On Friday I announced capital project money going to just such a school, Britannia Secondary School, which, as a school and community centre, operates from about 7 o'clock in the morning until the last lights go out at 11 o'clock at night and has a tremendous range of community groups using the school facility. There are dollars to two schools -- Britannia and Sir Charles Tupper -- amounting to over $11 million coming out of the capital envelope.
I'll be responding to the letter from the Vancouver board on its request for a special grant. That letter is in draft at this stage, and they'll be hearing directly from me on that.
The Chair: The member for Prince George.... Pardon me, member. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
J. Dalton: I guess some of the comments I made in my inaugural speech are coming back to haunt us all: the hon. member had some difficulty with the name of my riding.... Don't feel badly, all of you, because it seems to be an ongoing problem. Maybe we should change it now.
Before I make any other remarks, I want to be sure to compliment both the minister and her staff today for what I feel has been an excellent day -- a good,
[ Page 655 ]
wide-ranging discussion -- because the time is coming to a close, before this urgent debate is upon us at 4:30. The minister has been very forthright in her responses, and I'm sure that's in large part due to the excellent advice that she's getting; and she's very conversant with the issues.
I think the minister is also getting a good sense from the official opposition that we are truly concerned on this side about education. This wasn't just something that happened by accident; many speakers from the opposition have been on their feet today. In fact, I felt somewhat like a cheerleader this afternoon, orchestrating people as they came and went. North Vancouver certainly has been well favoured this afternoon in the remarks, and I'm not going to comment on that any further. It certainly was not our plan. In fact, one of the government MLAs -- the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- also spoke in support of some of the problems of the North Van district. Hopefully, that word will get back to North Vancouver, and they will certainly be pleased that all three MLAs were speaking on their behalf.
I would also applaud the minister's early announcement of the capital projects that are coming on board. I believe you said, hon. minister, that this is two and a half months earlier than when that would normally be announced, and you are to be commended for that, because it is certainly desirable that the planning for new construction and all the other things that will go into these capital projects get underway very quickly. So I'm encouraged to hear that news.
The minister made some remarks this afternoon, and I want to address some of these before we close debate today. There was some discussion about Bill 82 and negotiated salaries that were affected by Bill 82, one way or the other, and I believe there was some discussion from both a member and the minister about honouring collective agreements and the impact of those negotiated agreements vis-�-vis Bill 82. I think it's of interest -- in my riding in particular -- to draw some comparisons between two negotiated agreements and how Bill 82 impacted on those agreements. I'm referring to the West Vancouver district, which is approximately half of my riding, and the North Vancouver district, which is the other half.
West Vancouver settled prior to January 29 of this year, so it came in before that perhaps arbitrary deadline of when Bill 82 took effect. North Vancouver negotiated beyond that point, which resulted in a contract that was affected by Bill 82 of last year. I don't think there's any question, when you compare the financial difficulties -- and it's interesting to draw the comparison -- of both West Vancouver and North Vancouver districts, that North Vancouver is in much greater difficulty than West Vancouver. I would suggest to the minister that in large part, but not exclusively, North Vancouver's difficulties are caused by the repeal of Bill 82.
By the way, it was certainly part of Liberal policy in our platform in the campaign that we advocated the repeal of Bill 82, so we're certainly happy to see that that legislation is in essence gone, although it hasn't been formally repealed.
However, as to the comparison I was drawing between West and North Vancouver, West Vancouver is facing a shortfall of approximately $2.1 million -- give or take a few pennies -- in the upcoming year. North Vancouver, as I said earlier today, is facing an approximately $10 million shortfall. There's no question that the salaries negotiated were different as between the two. West Vancouver obviously honoured the collective agreement that was negotiated and was not affected by Bill 82. North Vancouver came in after Bill 82 took effect; they then rolled back their salaries to the 4 or 4.5 percent -- whatever it was -- and then when the effect of Bill 82 was taken away, North Vancouver had to increase its salaries.
As the minister properly pointed out, collective agreements have to be honoured -- no question -- and that's part of our policy, as well. However, when you are faced with a negotiated salary like that, naturally it has an impact on the overall budget, and I'm suggesting to the minister that the taking away of the cap on teachers' salaries in North Vancouver produced a much higher shortfall than what might normally have been anticipated.
I'm not pretending that we have any easy answer to that. I think that's an ongoing problem that we all have to address, but I did want to point out, and put on record, the comparison drawn between two side-by-side districts, both of which are within my riding.
While we're on the topic of collective agreements, the hon. member for Richmond Centre made some comments about the moneys provided in the bargaining process. The hon. member for Richmond Centre and the hon. minister had, as the member for Richmond Centre put it, a minor disagreement over the effect of funding as far as collective bargaining is concerned. I must say that I have to agree more with the member for Richmond Centre. It would be my feeling that the moneys being provided through the block funding formula in late January, or in February, are not necessarily totally realistic when a school board has yet to negotiate for the upcoming year with its salaried employees. Naturally there is some impact. That's not a serious issue that we could deal with now, but I think I would add -- and I'm sure future planning will take this into account -- that hopefully over the next few years, we will address the whole question of bargaining itself; whether it should be done at the local level, as some people advocate, or whether it should be provincial bargaining as others will advocate. The entire question of salary impact is a very important one because salaries will take up 85 to 95 percent of any given school district's budget, depending on the number of employees.
Perhaps the minister would like to comment on one thing in particular, and then we will be drawing to a close -- on this impact I've referred to in my comments about bill 82, and whether special consideration of the impact of rolling that back as far as negotiated salaries were concerned should have been taken into account.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member has an interesting situation in respect to the free collective bargaining of West Vancouver School District and North Vancouver
[ Page 656 ]
School District. I believe, if the member asked the outcome of that bargaining in each of the districts, that he might find that it was pretty close. Both districts bargained a comparable contract in terms of salaries and working-condition improvements, which together make the total compensation package, if you like. West Vancouver was in a position to honour its agreement -- which I believe the hon. member believes should have been the case -- and did so. Accordingly, it made whatever accommodations it needed to make within its budget to take into account how it would pay for that agreement. North Vancouver, like other districts, was captured by bill 82, and now has to honour that agreement, just as West Vancouver did. The parallel for both districts is the same. My approach is that we're treating districts fairly. Those districts bargained a collective agreement, and the results of that collective agreement should be honoured. We, on all sides of this House, I think, concur. The Liberal opposition and the New Democratic Party government -- I'm not sure about the other party -- agree that those agreements should be honoured, should have been honoured. So North Van and West Van are now in a parallel position in terms of the honouring of those agreements.
I would also like to note, with respect to the collective bargaining that boards and their employee groups are now entering, that they are doing so with the knowledge of the incomes for the coming year because they have been advised. So they are bargaining in the context of what they know their revenues and resources will be.
J. Dalton: I was wondering if it would be in order, given my eye on the clock, to adjourn. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
[4:30]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: In reference to the time of 4:30 and the earlier motion, the House granted leave to the Minister of Forests to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the motion that I moved in requesting the debate under standing order 35.
The Speaker: The motion has been moved that this House do now adjourn, for the purposes of undertaking an emergency debate on the gypsy moth issue. Members will recognize that we do not vote on this motion now. The motion is on the floor, which will allow us to debate for one hour. In this kind of debate the mover is allowed to speak for 15 minutes; every other member is allowed to speak 10 minutes once only during the debate. Debate under Standing Order 35
GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM
Hon. D. Miller: This is indeed an important issue, and I regret that I was not able to get unanimous leave of the House to have this matter voted on. However, hon. Speaker, I want to point out at the outset that we are using the emergency section of the various acts -- the Plant Protection Act and the environment act -- because it's absolutely necessary to begin a spraying program by April 15. Were we to follow the normal course laid out in the environment act, we would not be able to do that. And as I've said, hon. Speaker, we are taking this action to protect the environment.
I want to relate some very basic facts about the Asian gypsy moth and its possible repercussions if we do not move quickly. The gypsy moth was introduced into Vancouver in 1991 by ships carrying egg masses from Siberian ports, and a total of 33 gypsy moth males were detected in pheromone traps in the greater Vancouver area. This was the first detection -- I repeat, the first detection -- of Asian gypsy moths in North America. The Asian gypsy moth was subsequently detected near Tacoma, Washington -- nine males -- and near Portland, Oregon -- one male.
Gypsy moths are potentially the most destructive, defoliating, leaf-eating insects ever introduced into North America. The Asian gypsy moth has a broad host range of more than 500 species of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs -- far more than the closely related European gypsy moth. The Asian gypsy moth is capable of more rapid dispersion than the European gypsy moth, because the female moth can fly before laying its eggs. It is estimated that the Asian gypsy moth would spread throughout the southern portion of the province within 20 years.
Hon. Speaker, these are some facts regarding that fundamental point, because it has been stated -- I believe by members opposite -- that there is no difference between the European and the Asian gypsy moth. The female Asian gypsy moth can fly. It can lay its eggs in a large area and in a wide variety of locations. The female Asian gypsy moth has an average flight of between four and 25 kilometres, but can be carried up to 40 kilometres under favourable conditions. Thus the distribution of the pest by natural means and movement via commerce is faster than the European gypsy moth, where the female cannot fly.
If established in British Columbia, the Asian gypsy moth would cause extensive damage to some forest stands, commercial fruit trees and nursery stock. This would result in serious economic impact to the forestry and agricultural sectors. Severe defoliation of deciduous stands could result in disruption of bird and other wildlife habitat and reductions in watershed quality.
Hon. Speaker, I would point to the fact that people have mentioned Ontario, which has discontinued its spraying program for the European gypsy moth because of costs. The argument of the Ontario government essentially is that they cannot afford to spray private lands. I would also note that in Ontario, it was the environmental movement that encouraged and
[ Page 657 ]
convinced the Ontario government to change from the chemical spray that was previously used to the organic spray Bt. By the way, in Ontario, this is the European version of the gypsy moth that caused moderate to severe defoliation on a record 340,000 hectares.
Let's talk about trade. Our major trading partners -- particularly the United States, which has launched its own spraying program -- will respond to an established population of Asian gypsy moths, particularly in the Vancouver area, with immediate quarantine restrictions on the movement of lumber, nursery stock and other commodities. Mandatory inspection and certification will result in significant costs to industry and the federal government. This will be especially so if the U.S. proceeds -- and they are -- with their own spraying program. An established population of Asian gypsy moth in the port of Vancouver will result in economic impacts on the shipping industry, including rail, truck and container transport. Lumber exports alone from the port of Vancouver are more than $5 billion a year.
Because of its wide host range, the Asian gypsy moth will cause serious damage to urban trees and shrubs and parks. Stanley Park in particular will be extremely vulnerable. This will result in negative impacts to recreation and tourism in the province and will require the application of bacterial or chemical insecticides to maintain urban amenity values. Private and public use of all types of insecticides will increase.
I would also point out that some accidents were caused by the improper use of chemicals by individual property owners in the program of 1979 -- that was a ground application -- as opposed to the proposal we are approving here today.
By the way, gypsy moth caterpillars themselves can cause allergies and dermatitis in heavily infested areas. Ministry of Health officials have concluded that these public health risks are greater than any risks from the use of Btk. The U.S. Forest Service has estimated that sustained infestations of Asian gypsy moth could cause $35 billion to $58 billion in losses to commercial timber and $2 billion in losses to recreation and tourism. The cost of suppressing Asian gypsy moths could exceed $820 million between the years 2000 and 2040.
There is a wide range of support, some of which has been listed in this House. I would point out that most recently the federal NDP Environment critic, Jim Fulton, after meeting with the federal Minister of Health, has written me a letter urging us to proceed with this program and restating the fact that Btk is extremely safe.
We have proceeded under the aforementioned acts because we must get in the air and start spraying by April 15. We have had an unusually warm spring. In one instance egg masses that had been taken off freighters started hatching while they were in the pocket of the official who was collecting them.
Successful eradication requires that the insect be sprayed at the correct time. Egg masses likely began hatching in the last week of March due to the warmer-than-normal spring weather. On March 17 an egg mass removed from a Russian freighter moored in Cowichan Bay began hatching within a few hours of being warmed. In Washington State, egg masses of the North American strain were placed outside to be monitored for hatching so that the U.S. eradication spray could be timed. These egg masses began hatching in the last week of March. With the timing of this hatching and the continuing warm weather, it is expected that all or most eggs will have hatched by April 15, and the early-hatching caterpillars will have reached the second or third stage and will be actively feeding on foliage. This is the most opportune time to spray.
On balance, as I've said, this is a risk assessment. There are severe economic and environmental risks. I would urge all members of this House, particularly members of the opposition parties, to seriously consider the ramifications of this program and to support the government's decision to begin the spraying program.
G. Wilson: With respect to this so-called emergency debate, I would point out to the minister, who had suggested it was unfortunate that there wasn't unanimous consent, that with 48 hours' notice a unanimous leave can be presented at any time on the matter of the debate. Furthermore, it's important to start to get down to some of the discussion about the facts of what we're dealing with....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I extended the courtesy to the minister to allow him to finish without heckling. Perhaps he's nervous about his position and feels he has to try to disrupt me.
Let us put in perspective what we are debating here. Let it be very clear that no one in the Liberal opposition is saying that we do not need to control the gypsy moth. There is no one in the Liberal opposition who would say that we are not concerned for the forest industry should the gypsy moth in fact appear to be a significant and real danger. However, we are saying that the policy this government has embarked upon in a knee-jerk reaction is very much like lighting a forest fire to fry an egg. There are better ways in which we can start to deal with the question of this gypsy moth.
We on this side of the House have done considerable research and have gone beyond the government agency Agriculture Canada, which has an investment in the spraying program, because that is what they are mandated to advocate and do. We have sought independent advice. With respect to the question of the 1991 arrival of the gypsy moth, I would point out to the minister that from our research and talking to entomologists at the University of British Columbia, the first noted docking of the gypsy moth in British Columbia was in 1912. It came on a Japanese freighter, and it did not get out and breed with a voracious appetite and destroy all of the forests.
I would also say that at the worst time, in a global perspective, when the gypsy moth was at its height in 1981, this province was actively trading with the port of Vladivostok, from which most of the gypsy moths were going to be leaving the Asian continent and coming into
[ Page 658 ]
British Columbia. We did have inspection and search-and-destroy methods for dealing with the gypsy moth. At that time, the gypsy moth did not have a voracious appetite.
The minister says that there is a difference between the European and the Asian gypsy moth. I would point out that they are the same species. Agriculture Canada has made a great deal of the fact that what makes the difference between the Asian and the European gypsy moth is that the Asian gypsy moth has a female that can fly, and the European gypsy moth has one that cannot. I refer to scientific notes. "Flight of the North American Female Gypsy Moth," by Roger Sandquist, Jim Richerson and Alan Cameron, October 1973, suggests that the Eurasian gypsy moths are known to fly. The premise that females of the European form are flightless has been widely accepted, and it goes on to say that this is not so, and that observations of flight were made on adults that emerged from pupae collected from Blue Mountain in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and were transported to test sites in Huntingdon County.
This document from these Pennsylvania State University professors indicates that the premise that the European gypsy moth is so substantially different from the Asian one is questionable at best. And we're arguing that there is enough information out there of a contradictory nature that the people of British Columbia deserve to hear from independent agents, and not the agents of Agriculture Canada, whose mandate it is to promote the spraying of the pesticide. Excuse me, it is not a pesticide, and let's come back to that. I want to correct that. It is not a pesticide -- the spraying of a controlling agent, a bacterium, for the control of this gypsy moth.
[4:45]
Hon. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the reason we have some concern is that if we look at the history of the advice provided by Agriculture Canada, we can find that on numerous occasions there has been an approach taken where some form of bacterium or sometimes chemical control of so-called pests has been put in place, only to find that what it does is embark upon a very costly and long-term cycle of using increasingly powerful agents to try to maintain control of a pest. This is for a species which has not even been proven to be a problem of any magnitude in British Columbia.
Our research has said that we are dealing with 17 moths, and it suggests that those 36 males caught last summer are roughly 20 percent of the species total. Hon. Speaker, we ask ourselves: is it truly an emergency of this magnitude, when we are dealing with several hundred moths that essentially cannot be sustained in a northern coniferous forest, as I would argue from all of the information that we have been able to gain? That's a most important point from the research that we have done, talking with noted entomologists from the University of British Columbia. They have suggested that nowhere in the world does the Asian gypsy moth have a successful record in a northern coniferous forest. Now we recognize that roughly 85 percent of the area which we're dealing with....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Forests says it came from Russia. I suggest he take a course in geography and learn what Russia is about. If we look at the area that we're dealing with here, we recognize that there is a potential threat to about 15 percent of the more temperate forest with a deciduous base or a mixed deciduous forest. We understand that there is concern for broad-leaf vegetation: alder, certainly maple, and some other species may be affected. But it is important for us to note that where this vegetation occurs, largely in the region around the port of Vancouver, there are, quite clearly, alternative methods that can be used.
I would have suggested that prior to feeding alarm and all kinds of hysteria, as this emergency environmental crisis manufactured by this government would do, perhaps what this government should have done is embark upon an education process in the elementary schools and high schools and among community members, so that people could identify the larvae, could identify when that larvae was present, and make information available on where these moths do occur. No evidence whatever has been tabled in this House to suggest that this is in fact a widespread problem.
Hon. Speaker, I refer you to our trading partners to the south, because I believe this is at the root of this crisis in which this government finds itself now. If I read from today's Oregonian, where they talk about the need to spray, they are basing that on one male gypsy moth found. For one moth found, 9,100 acres are going to be put under spray. I would suggest that what we are dealing with here is a knee-jerk reaction from our trading partners to the south, who are simply saying to British Columbians: "If you don't spray, we are going to start to put restrictions on your ability to export lumber." That should not be a reason for this government to simply toss out due process or public input. It should not be a reason for them to have a knee-jerk reaction to the Americans, who have constantly gone to this great method of pest control through the application of herbicides, various pesticides and, in this case, a bacterium.
There is no evidence to suggest that there are not better ways. I can tell you of the many letters we have had -- the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and many of the government members here -- saying that this government has an obligation to make sure that due process is followed.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a crisis of magnitude. There is no question that we need to control the gypsy moth, and there is no question that that control can be done in a proper way. But to react the way the Americans have, to light the forests on fire to fry an egg, is a knee-jerk reaction and shows that this government does not have the will and gumption to stand up and speak out for British Columbians and to put in place a more proper, sensible and intelligent way of managing our environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, every member of the House has the greatest respect for due process. If we
[ Page 659 ]
did not have that respect, we would not be here. The very act of seeking to be a representative in political office means that we have a respect for the traditions of our democracy and the due process that is part of that democracy. It would be most inappropriate to suggest that due process is not valued by any party within this House.
The fact is that on March 26 the Ministry of Environment issued a permit granting Agriculture Canada, acting as a proponent on behalf of two agencies of the federal government and two agencies of the provincial government, the right to spray in defined areas in the lower mainland. As we know, this is a biological spray, an often recommended alternative to chemical sprays.
We also know that in issuing that permit, Mr. Kobylnyk stated that the earliest day spraying could take place was April 26. He did so, again, valuing the need for due process, to enable sufficient time for the Environmental Appeal Board to conduct an appropriate hearing.
At that time the press release issued by Mr. Kobylnyk indicated that circumstances could result in the need to consider an emergency order to begin the spraying at an earlier date. That was clearly stated at that time.
In the best of all possible worlds, there is always time to take the time to make the right decision. As the Minister of Environment, I hear from groups all the time, saying: "Mr. Minister, why haven't you made a decision on protecting this watershed? Why haven't you done this?" My answer is: "Because in the time that the government needs to make the right decision, we're going to do it right and we're going to do it well." In the best of all possible worlds, we want to take the needed time.
Hon. Speaker, there are times in the real world when time runs out. That is a reality that we have to face as part of our responsibility as decision-makers. There are times when we have to be willing to make decisions under very distressing circumstances. I assure every member of this House that no one makes those kinds of decisions without a great deal of thought and a great deal of concern.
Therefore, in the real world, due process allows for rare but real emergencies, and hon. Speaker, we are dealing here with a real emergency. If you see a house on fire, you don't hold a committee meeting to decide whether you go into the house and try to rescue people there; you have to act. Due process in our law includes the opportunity to act in time of emergency. The very suggestion, which I hope is not being made by the Leader of the Opposition, that this is not within the context of due process is an inappropriate suggestion. Hence we have in law the opportunity for elected decision-makers to make decisions in circumstances just such as this, to act decisively, to act quickly, to act caringly. Due process therefore includes within our law such powers as we have in the Pesticide Control Act, where an emergency can be declared, the Environment Management Act and the Plant Protection Act. I submit that that is due process which exists in law, and which is being exercised under these circumstances.
[5:00]
As my colleague has stated, we are dealing with a moth capable of severe and lasting damage to the ecology. It would be inappropriate to characterize this debate as the environmental community being on one side and the rest being on the other. That type of polarization will not serve the purpose. The fact is that there are excellent environmentalists on both sides of this issue who are diligently pursuing objectives that they passionately believe in -- and so it should be directed to the matter of substance.
This moth could cause impacts, as my colleague has stated, that could cause severe problems for our economy. The fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that that is not the case is one of the reasons a debate such as this is needed. I see him shaking his head. Therefore I will clarify what I understand his position to be.
He is saying that he doesn't believe it's the kind of emergency that warrants this kind of action; we believe it is. It's an emergency because the larvae are vulnerable only during a very short space of time. To allow the process of the Environmental Appeal Board to proceed until April 26 would render it useless. It would mean that the result of that hearing would effectively ruin any possibility of the spray program being effective. Therefore this is one case where timing and warm weather have conspired to indicate the need for decision-makers to act with dispatch.
When we come to the point about the beginning date of the spray, this is the key point. We can spend a lot of time asking questions about unresolved scientific information. It can come down to an issue of your scientist versus somebody else's scientist, but government has to make a decision in these circumstances based on a careful analysis of all the information we have available, and understanding the best of all probabilities. Our understanding of the probabilities has to be applied in these circumstances. I would point out that to suggest that it has not been proven, that this amounts to a threat, as some people say it is, becomes academic in the circumstances. Let us remember that the starling in New York City started from just four that were brought over from the United Kingdom -- four starlings. In 1945 there were no starlings in British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: Two rabbits in Australia.
Hon. J. Cashore: My colleague says it was two rabbits in Australia.
The fact is that this moth has the ability, according to the best available information, to become so severe a danger and threat to the environment, to health and to the economy, that it warrants the kind of decision that we have made.
Hon. Speaker, I just want to say that I had to leave the chamber for a few moments yesterday afternoon after my colleague had raised this issue requesting an emergency debate, so that I could go and participate in a phone call with the Hon. Bill McKnight, federal Minister of Agriculture, to discuss coordinating plans. I think it is inappropriate to cast aspersions on the federal Minister of Agriculture in the context of this discussion.
[ Page 660 ]
Federal Agriculture has a role that also is in the public interest, and I want to assure the House that my office has been in touch with their office again today. We are working on the kind of communications plan and coordination that should enable this program to be carried out as carefully as possible.
Clearly, it is essential that we do everything we can to inform the public in the most appropriate way of the procedures that will be taken. Hon. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate at this time, because this is an important part of the process of speaking to the people of British Columbia in a way that enables all elected representatives to participate in carrying that message forward in a helpful way.
Hon. Speaker, failure to spray with this treatment at this time could result in uncontrolled spraying of chemical pesticides by those in the community who, because of the publicity, have developed a deep concern over the natural endowments of their own properties. I would also point out that environmental groups such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists have supported this.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to start by saying that we have cast no aspersions on Agriculture Canada. In fact, our difficulty is with this government and with the process in which this issue has been treated and the way the people of B.C. are being treated.
First of all, hon. Speaker, I am very upset that we are even having this debate after the decision has been made. The decision was made, and the permit was issued some time ago, without any consultation with the people of B.C. The letters and phone calls that I've been getting as Environment critic and that our members in the affected ridings have been getting are not only from their ridings but from ridings represented by cabinet ministers. We're just being overwhelmed by information.
People have filed an appeal, and the appeal hearing will be going on after the pesticide has been applied. We have to be gravely concerned about a process where the people are not being factored in.
We have a case here where the first Asian gypsy moth was found in 1912. There has never been an infestation in B.C. -- in 80 years, no case of an infestation. We have 17 male Asian gypsy moths that have been found, and for those 17 Asian moths we are bypassing due process and having a so-called emergency debate after a decision has been made. A permit has already been issued, and the appeals will not be heard until after the pesticide is applied. I'll tell you, the emergency is in the process, not in the issue.
I feel that we are partaking in a form of manipulation. I feel the people of B.C. are being manipulated, and that this is a public relations campaign on the part of the NDP. I'm very upset to think that the only crisis that we are dealing with here is a crisis within cabinet, where you have cabinet members whose conscience will not allow for what's happening here.
That party was a very green party in opposition. In fact, before they were even in opposition, we have statements from two aldermen who, when they were Vancouver city councillors, made motions against the spraying proposed then. We had an alderman who is currently sitting as a cabinet minister, and of course our Premier, who had made motions. For example, it was moved by the Premier, who at that time was an alderman, that a task force be appointed to examine alternative approaches.
I would like to say also that I find it really disheartening to hear the heckling that's coming. This is a very serious issue. We have done our research, and our research indicates that the European moth has a better chance of surviving than the Asian. And there's still no infestation. So if you're saying, "Oh, European, European," great -- still no infestation. It's less likely that the Asian gypsy moth will infest B.C.
We should not be giving in to some kind of manipulation that may be happening, whether it be with regard to log exports or whatever. We're talking about people's lives that are being affected here.
Hon. D. Miller: How? How are their lives being affected?
J. Tyabji: I would appreciate a little less heckling so that I can continue to make a point.
D. Lovick: Point of order, hon. Speaker. We have been in this House for some time now, and all new members should know the basic rules. One of the rules is that you do not impugn the motives or the integrity of members on the other side of the House. I would suggest that the member's statements have done just that, and they ought to be withdrawn.
The Speaker: If the hon. member had made those statements, she may wish to rephrase them so that they do not offend the rules of the House, please.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I have been speaking from the heart. I don't believe I have impugned anyone's honour. I have been speaking from the facts. The facts as I see them are that we are here currently for what is being called an environmental emergency. We are being televised across the province, and the people of B.C. are getting the wrong message with regard to this. If there was to be a debate, there should have been a debate prior to a decision being made. If there was going to be time for an appeal, there should have been time for an appeal prior to the bactericide being sprayed. It's ludicrous that we're sitting here having a debate that's not going to have an impact on the decision that's being made. How can we possibly be effective representatives?
As for my comments about this being a green opposition, this was a green opposition that would have.... We have statements from them as to the intentions that they had prior to getting into government.
With regard to the comments from the Minister of Environment when he was talking, they were with regard to due process: we get elected, we have to make difficult decisions. When you're getting elected, if you portray yourself in a certain manner and therefore get elected, it is your responsibility to continue with that portrayal. If we're talking about integrity with regard to
[ Page 661 ]
the environmental movement, I do not believe that we should be here debating a decision that's already been made.
I think that the comments with regard to due process.... I find it unfortunate that in my mind there's a total loss of credibility in terms of the "openness and honesty" slogan that was being bandied around during the election campaign. Where is the openness? Where are people allowed to make their comments?
We have had calls all day, and I'll tell you some of the things that have come in. The first reactions are: "What happened to open government? Nobody cares what we want to believe." This is from the callers, hon. Speaker. "The cabinet are ignoring the foremost professionals and experts on this subject." Another caller: "They are spraying from the air because the last time they tried spraying on the ground, in 1979, the residents stopped them. The same two people were the ones who predicted a disaster that never materialized without the spraying." Another caller said: "Considering the testimony of two eminent UBC entomologists and several physicians and specialists, should not this government show enough initiative and concern for public health to conduct its own inquiry? This spray project is most likely just a make-work project." Somebody very cynical phoning on that one.
I could go on and on. These people were being much more critical than I am, hon. Speaker, and much less generous to the government. The letters go on and on; these are letters that have come through here.
I think that debate after decision is ludicrous when we've got so much information that we could have used to have a constructive debate, so that we could have made what we considered to be an informed decision. We believe that the decision has been made with information from only one side of the issue.
We look at Ontario, where they were spraying for ten years for the European gypsy moth, which has a greater likelihood of infestation than the Asian gypsy moth. Ten years of study for a gypsy moth; same species, greater likelihood of infestation -- never an example. It says that in the past ten years of research into the effects of gypsy moths in Ontario, they have observed that this insect has had very little impact on forests. Tree mortality in infested stands has been similar to natural mortality in forest stands. That's with the gypsy moth with a greater likelihood of infestation. Why could we not have provided this information prior to a decision being made?
We've got the example in Oregon where they found one moth, and they're spraying 9,600 acres. They predict that the cost in Oregon, Washington and B.C. for the spraying will be nearly $14.5 million. Why are we doing that when here we've got 17 male Asian moths, yet no egg masses have been found? Where are these big infestations? What is it that we're spraying for? If there were thousands that had been found, if there was proper documentation saying that there is an actual infestation, we would be standing in support of this. We can't stand in support of this. We have to have due process. We should have allowed this information to be brought to the table. How can we possibly even think this is an emergency?
Our feeling is that the emergency really occurred in the cabinet; that this was a difficult public relations decision, so we have been pulled into a debate and a public relations exercise, because they wanted, for example, to try and let some of the mud stick to the opposition. It's not going to work, because we didn't have any part in the decision-making process. We would have been happy to have been part of the decision-making process. We would have been happy to be able to provide a badly needed environmental perspective into this decision-making process -- an economic perspective.
We share with the cabinet the objective....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, if I could make my last comments.
We share with the cabinet the objective of protecting the stands of trees. We share with the cabinet the objective of protecting our forest industry 100 percent. We absolutely and unequivocally cannot support the kind of process that has gone on with regard to the gypsy moth, because it's undemocratic and it's contrary to the wishes of all the people who've contacted us, and because we're having a debate after the decision has been made.
I thank you, hon. Speaker, and I do wish that next time we have something of this serious nature we can at least have order in the House, because we have certainly extended the same courtesy to the government side.
C. Serwa: It's again a pleasure to stand up and debate in the Legislature, and I welcome the opportunity for this debate, for objective information on the Asian gypsy moth to be brought forward on the floor. Objective assessment of pertinent information with responsibility to the public foremost in our minds, for both the short and the long term, is incredibly important for the public in British Columbia.
A number of important issues have been raised with the inadvertent introduction of the Asian gypsy moth into the Vancouver area: public health, environment and economic implications are all relevant. I've travelled to a number of countries and spent a bit of time in New Zealand, Australia and Hawaii, and I recognize what non-indigenous pests can do to a country, both for the expense and to the detriment of the economy, and agriculture especially.
There are over 400 species of plants, trees and shrubs that will host the 3- to 4-inch caterpillar. As the Minister of Forests pointed out, the mobility of the female moth.... It can spread 30 kilometres on a flight, and it certainly heightens the concern and the awareness of the potential explosion of the territory that this infestation could occur in. The voracious feeder has inspired an international opposition to the Asian gypsy moth population expanding into their jurisdictions.
The previous speaker should be familiar with the problems we have in the Okanagan with a moth called the codling moth and the cost of multi-millions of dollars over a long period of time to our orchard industry, which is already hard-pressed. Here we're on
[ Page 662 ]
the doorstep of trying to encourage another moth, which could affect horticulture adversely. The Okanagan tree-fruit industry is concerned about this, and pesticide sprays which have been used to control the codling moth have also injured a lot of the predacious mites and required increasingly high levels of pesticide use to the detriment of the environment. We're embarking on a sterile insect release program which the province is paying for that is costing, and will continue to cost, many millions of dollars.
The potential for ecological, environmental and economic problems caused by the Asian gypsy moth is much greater in the province of British Columbia. The port of Vancouver is incredibly important to the provincial economy and to the Canadian economy. It's a gateway to the Asian Pacific and to the world. We're a trading province, and we need that open door. An embargo or quarantine could be placed. Forestry exports, nursery stock, coal and grain shipments, all international trade could be adversely affected. If infestation is left, forests of both coniferous and deciduous species could be affected. Horticulture in the Fraser Valley and certainly in the Okanagan, agriculture -- severely -- and health too could be affected. The health implications are negative, with the histamines which the hollow hairs of the caterpillar contain.
Obviously there are home gardeners and there again is a potential environmental danger, because they tend to use pesticides at much higher levels than the required amounts. There are many environmental concerns and negative implications from that.
Several weeks ago I asked the Minister of Health for information and technical papers. I received quite a number of them. I made an independent review of this information, and I was impressed with the material. There were numerous papers and studies on the Asian gypsy moth itself, and associated occupational and health problems as a result of that pest.
[5:15]
There were environmental reviews of Btk by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Studies on Btk by Dr. Roy Ellis of Prairie Pest Management: "Toxicology of the Microbial Insecticide Thuricide." And production and control standards for the commercial production of Btk. The substance Btk has been used all over the world. Over a million pounds annually are used in the United States of America. The bacillus was first isolated in 1902, so it's not a new bacillus on the block. Organic growers use it extensively, and they use it right up to the day of harvest. It has been used in a variety of communities in the province of British Columbia: Kitsilano, Fort Langley, Courtenay, Chilliwack, Parksville, Esquimalt, North Saanich and Kelowna.
In every field test of Btk it has proven to have no adverse affects on mammals, birds, fish or beneficial insects -- only caterpillars of moths and butterflies.
The argument for or against spraying cannot be based on health concerns -- Btk or aerial spraying. I have come to that conclusion independently. There are no absolutely zero-risk options; it is clear that health concerns are minimal. As a legislator, I believe that emotionalism cannot and must not be a force to cloud this debate. It is childish, foolish and irresponsible. The environmental, economic and health concerns are of such a magnitude that immediate and urgent action in control measures must be taken.
I will not fuel the controversy nor use this opportunity for short-term political gain. The right decision had to be made. I know the attitude of the Minister of Environment, and I know his past stands personally and as a former critic of the Ministry of Environment, so I know that it was a difficult decision for him to make. The right decision was in fact made, and our Social Credit caucus stands behind the government in its decision.
Hon. T. Perry: The hon. member for Okanagan West has in his usual erudite way reviewed many of the issues. I would like to try to put them into some context. This is not a political question, hon. Speaker and members; this is a very difficult decision faced by the government on a complex issue in which there was not only public disagreement but some scientific disagreement, which was weighed very carefully by government and by government scientists who brought advice to government.
I'm familiar only briefly with the role of taking such decisions in cabinet, but from my former life I am familiar with many instances where one must make difficult complex decisions, weighing evidence where sometimes evidence is conflicting or contradictory, where expert opinions differ, and where one sometimes must act without all of the detailed information which in an ideal world one would like to have. It's not an unfamiliar situation, although it is never a pleasant one, to be in a position of making an important decision, one which affects the lives of many people and potentially affects not only the gardens but the forests and agriculture of this province, when one doesn't have all of the information one would like and when there isn't the perfect certainty of expert opinion all on one side. But this the real world that we live in.
The vast predominance of the evidence available to government scientists, not only in the federal government but in the provincial government ministries of Agriculture and Food, Forests, and Environment argues the existence of a serious environmental threat from the Asian gypsy moth. Reputable, competent, fair-minded ecologists of high reputation have some doubts. Dr. Judith Myers at UBC has some significant doubts. Those doubts have been weighed carefully by members of the government and by government scientists. Many of us have read the original papers faxed and mailed to us directly, to weigh the evidence not only through what is channelled through government but by ourselves. The opinion of the vast majority of reputable experts in British Columbia, although not unanimous, concords with the opinions of the relevant departments in the states of Washington and Oregon, and of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Some of the concerns expressed by opponents of aerial spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis for Asian gypsy moths are reasonable. Far from belittling them, government has weighed them very carefully. We have similarly weighed the concerns about potential health
[ Page 663 ]
effects of the bacillus. Before discussing some of those I have to think back with a certain irony to the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962; the development of the first major British Columbia debate on environmental issues, which followed in the late 1960s early 1970s; and the influence of a prominent biologist, I believe an entomologist, Dr. Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University, who brought to the attention of many hon. members here the issues of the accumulation of pesticides and the residues in the environment. It's with a certain irony that I think back to how strongly some of us called for the use of bacteriologic insecticidal agents rather than chemical pesticides: they would be more ecologically tolerable; although they are not purely target-specific, their effects on non-target species such as other insects are immediate rather than long-term; and they do not persist in the environment. In fact, a bacillus like Bt is a natural inhabitant of the environment. It's in the soil in everyone's garden. So it's ironic that we find ourselves facing the question of whether this now poses, in its own way, a health threat. I think not.
Two friends of mine are respected physicians who have raised the question of whether the bacteria may be harmful to people in Vancouver. One Dr. Cameron of North or West Vancouver, a respected neurologist, raises concerns about the impact of this bacterium on immuno-compromised people -- people with cancer, AIDS or HIV infection, for example, whose immune systems are not in perfect order. I have read carefully every paper that Dr. Cameron and his colleagues have sent to me -- everything.
Government scientists, not only the medical health officer of Vancouver, Dr. Blatherwick, but the provincial medical health officer, Dr. Rick Matthias, a respected epidemiologist at the University of British Columbia, and others have reviewed the same evidence -- Dr. Ray Copes of the environmental health department of the Ministry of Health, among others. All have come to the same conclusion: that while it's impossible to rule out any possibility of an adverse health effect, the apparent risks from the available evidence, including the evidence of literally millions of people who have been exposed to Bt through aerial and ground spraying or occupational exposure, amounts to reassurance that one would not expect any significant health effects from aerial spraying.
One cannot dismiss them absolutely, any more than one can dismiss any other low-level risk, but one ought to put those risks into context: namely, the absolute risk that 3,500 British Columbians will die this calendar year from the effects of tobacco smoke. Not a supposition, a known fact: 3,500 will die, not suffer allergic reactions. Hundreds of people will die or be permanently disabled in accidents, motor vehicle accidents and homicides. Alcohol, along with human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B and other preventable illnesses will claim a major toll amounting to hundreds if not thousands of lives in British Columbia this year. One must put into that context the remote risk of a health consequence of Bt spray.
I am satisfied personally and as a member of a cabinet that we made a difficult decision in a time-frame where the emergency was conditioned not by a desire to negate an established public process but by biological reality: the warm spring produced the early hatching and maturation of the larval instars and the hatching of larvae. I am satisfied, as a member of that government, that we made the right decision.
Therefore I hope hon. members will help the government convey to the public that in a situation where decision-making was difficult but important to the long-term interests of the province, and where it's impossible to be certain what course should be taken, the government had to take the prudent course. It made the most sensible decision available, based on the scientific advice it was offered and through an intensive and careful review of the facts. Government relies, appropriately, on all members to help convey to the public that an inappropriate sense of hysteria would only serve to hurt the public, frighten people who do not deserve to be frightened and to drive people into physicians' offices, deterring their applying their skills to people who really need the help and diverting resources from more pressing problems in British Columbia. We rely not only on hon. members but on the media to report this issue responsibly, to express dissent where it exists, but to express that in the context of how carefully government has acted in reaching this decision. Therefore, although I share many of the concerns of the ecologists and physicians who have brought their concerns to our attention, I'm proud to say that I think the government has taken the responsible decision.
A. Cowie: Clearly the decision has already been made, so we're not debating that. My colleagues on this side of the House and I are more concerned with process. What we heard from the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is that the situation is inconclusive on both sides. There is an opinion on both sides -- from environmental people as well. But if in doubt, spray. We on this side don't take that position.
In fact, we agree with the stand that the Premier and the former Minister of Tourism took in 1979 when dealing with the European gypsy moth in the Kitsilano area. They put forward a motion, which was passed, that there be a task force to study the matter more clearly, work with the people on what the problem was and overcome it.
Clearly it's not an emergency, as our leader and the MLA for Okanagan East have so well expressed. Some spraying has to take place. What we would like to see is a more limited management approach. What we would like to see is the traps put out and, where there's evidence, spraying from the ground. Clearly that can be done. It is more costly, but it can be done, and it can be very effective. I feel that those areas would be very limited, in special cases where you've got large areas of deciduous growth -- because that's really what this moth attacks more; there's no proof that it attacks the coniferous forest. Where that's the situation, as with the Endowment Lands, where it's mostly alder, you could have limited spraying by helicopter. There are some other areas where you could have some limited spraying.
[ Page 664 ]
We also want to recognize that there is no proof that Btk is hazardous to human health. We're willing to concede that. There's very little proof, but still there could be problems. As I say, what we're mostly concerned with the process. The decision has been made, and now we have to debate it.
[5:30]
In closing -- I have about one minute -- I'd like to give you a personal experience. As a young forester in my student days, I took part in the spruce budworm spraying in northern New Brunswick. I can remember walking through the forest after the pilots sprayed. I assure you, nothing was living at all. So thank goodness we've moved away from the period of using DDT to a more sensible approach.
Perhaps you don't know, but I'm sure you do, that we have Btk in this particular case. It kills all moths and all butterflies. It doesn't simply zero in on the Asian moth. I think that's a very important thing. I would like to see -- and we on this side would like to see -- a more limited approach, a softer approach, but one that could work. The spruce budworm spraying in New Brunswick -- they're still spraying. It hasn't worked.
Hon. D. Miller: There's no comparison.
A. Cowie: There is a comparison. My forest friends there tell me it's a natural cycle of about 30 years, and if you used a better management approach in cutting those trees and managing those forests, you wouldn't have this problem.
So I'll close with that, expressing a great deal of caution. I think we could take a more conservative approach, as the approach by your current Premier was a much more sensible one.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the time having expired under standing order 35, we are now back in orders of the day, and I call on the government House Leader.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada