1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1992

Morning Sitting

Volume 6, Number 11


[ Page 4011 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY GRANTS AND MACHINES

L. Fox: My question this morning is to the Minister of Government Services. On May 7 the minister promised a new community grants program to replace the GO B.C. program that had dedicated over $50 million a year in lottery funds to communities throughout British Columbia. Now community groups have been told that there won't be any new community grants this year because the program has been shelved. Why has the NDP government turned its back on local communities and cancelled lottery grants for capital projects that would have generated economic activity and increased government revenues?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I thank the member for that question because it gives me an opportunity to tell him that, had his government not spent so much in the past, in fact we would have had the money for the program. This government inherited more than $80 million worth of commitments for community grants from the previous government. Unfortunately, they have come in at a rate far greater than we anticipated and eaten up the moneys that we had available. In these tough economic times we're doing what we can to provide dollars for them. The program has not been shelved. It will be available next year, but it won't be of the magnitude that the previous government had, because we can no longer spend that magnitude of money in this province.

L. Fox: Obviously the minister has been part of the machine that has been driving the bus for the last year, and we all know what has happened to the finances of this province over the past year.

However, hon. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the same minister. The minister told this House in June that the non-profit societies that had purchased breakaway lottery machines would receive their payment in the very near future. Can the minister tell us why many of these societies, almost a year after the government cancelled the breakaway lottery program, still have not received payment for those machines?

Hon. L. Boone: The breakopen program is, of course, something that we didn't want to do, but it was necessary because of bad management by the previous government in signing contracts that were later on found to be illegal. However, the staff at the Lottery Corporation and the lottery branch of this ministry -- community grants -- have worked hard with all communities and organizations to make sure that they receive the dollars available to them. We did provide a payment six months in advance for them as a pay-out on this area here, we gave them a break of over two months in that area there, and we did not hold them to the time period we had. We've done everything to bend over backwards to assist the community organizations out there, which are doing a good job.

If you have a problem with one specific machine that has not been purchased, I urge you to make your comments to me outside of question period so that we can deal with that.

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

C. Tanner: To the Minister of Tourism. In a recent letter to the Vancouver Sun, the minister defended her no-foreigners-allowed policy. She said: "I make no apologies.... Who better to develop that package than the artists and creative talents who live and work in B.C.? I think that's a job for British Columbians, not New Yorkers." Is the minister promoting the notion that every firm in B.C. is staffed by foreigners and is inherently less talented?

Hon. D. Marzari: No.

C. Tanner: I congratulate the minister on the brevity of her answer. Perhaps she'll be a lesson to the other ministers. My questions are equally short and to the point too, as you will see.

During the election the NDP found non-Canadians acceptable, and in fact hired an American, Karl Struble, to recycle Rhode Island ads and tell the voters of B.C. they deserve a better and honest government, as "hard-working as the people who pay for it." The Premier invites foreign businesses on his world tours.

Interjections.

C. Tanner: I'm getting there. Hang in there.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

C. Tanner: Why is the minister promoting an anti-foreigner position while the Premier circumnavigates the globe encouraging business? Why is she contradicting the Premier?

Hon. D. Marzari: The member has been reading the wrong newspapers and the wrong columnists. This is a Buy B.C project. This is a Buy Canadian project. The Tourism ministry is saying that we are not going to go cross-border shopping to buy our images or our advertising agency. The Ministry of Tourism is saying that without conflicting with any trade agreement made across this country and without getting into trouble with any major contractual obligations, we are going to spend our graphics and advertising dollars at home. If we have to carry our image of British Columbia and sell what we have abroad and to the rest of the world, then we should be using our own Canadian artists, graphics people and advertising agencies to do that. No cross-border shopping for graphics.

C. Tanner: The minister mentioned Buy B.C. I'm sure the minister is aware of an accord that was signed 

[ Page 4012 ]

by the four western Premiers in 1989 and was intended to end discrimination among western provinces in awarding government contracts for goods and services. In the spirit of that accord this government hired a maritime marketing consultant from that world-renowned port of Winnipeg. Does the minister not agree that her policy is a clear contravention of the western agreement?

Hon. D. Marzari: Once again the member needs to do his homework. He's taking his information from an article written in a newspaper by someone who didn't do his homework. The situation was that of a Canadian tender for Canadian firms. It was not only for British Columbia firms -- although that would not have been a bad idea. We canvassed the country for the tender. It is a Canadian advertisement, a Canadian project. As I said, we will be buying our advertising services from Canadian companies.

You're talking about a trade agreement signed among the Canadian government and western provinces that said that if we had gone to B.C. alone, we would have been in contravention of that trade agreement. The western trade agreement restricts western provinces from becoming insular and parochial in and of themselves. The Canadian expanse....

[10:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would encourage the minister to conclude her reply.

Hon. D. Marzari: I want to make it very clear, because I tried to in the first answer.

The fact that our advertisement was across the country and invited Canadian bids ensured that it did not contravene western Canadian trade agreements. If the member did his homework he would understand; if he read the ad he would understand.

ROBERTS BANK BACKUP LANDS

F. Gingell: On May 5 of this year, hon. Speaker, during the Ministry of Agriculture estimates, the minister stated that the 4,200 acres of class 1 agricultural land known as the Roberts Bank backup lands are seen to be one of the prime areas to be preserved. My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Has the minister advised his ministry staff, particularly those involved in the Boundary Bay environmental study, of this clearly enunciated government policy?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the answer is yes. My staff is fully aware of clearly enunciated government policy, which also includes the process now being undertaken, which is a full review, a study of the backup lands and their eventual role, recognizing that the agricultural values are paramount.

PEAT MARWICK REPORT

R. Neufeld: The Peat Marwick report recommended that the government should conduct an in-depth study of the sharing of taxing power and responsibility with local authorities. Can the Minister of Finance advise us whether he's adopted the recommendation in order to study...?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted, hon. Speaker, that the Social Credit caucus has seen the light and now is referring to the Peat Marwick report as a guide to government policy.

I can assure you we are doing a review of all of Peat Marwick's recommendations incrementally, and there are several reviews which impact on municipal government. One is the education financing review, of which -- I won't get too partisan, but unlike, unfortunately, sometimes in the past.... The education finance review has Joyce Harder, the UBCM president, as part of the panel. We have elected representatives such as school trustees, and from municipal governments. We're taking their concerns very seriously. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is involved in that as well. So in the area that impacts on municipal government, we have a very extensive process. As well, you're quite correct, there is other work being done by the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Finance on the questions of governance, tax room and probably taxes with respect to municipal finances.

RESOURCE COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General, with the purpose of seeking a clarification. Since the Schwindt commission was established to consult with industry and stakeholders in determining resource compensation principles, and now that the Attorney General has announced that his ministry, as well as the Ministries of Forests and Energy, will be consulting with industry in drafting compensation legislation, will the Attorney General explain why, after consulting since March of this year, they will now continue to consult? Or is that an admission that the government is going to proceed with their own agenda, regardless of what the rest of the province thinks?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The consultation that Dr. Schwindt was involved in with industry and others in the province was in respect of developing recommendations concerning the principles to be contained in legislation that might be introduced in the Legislature. The next step is for us to begin preparation to introduce legislation in the House next spring. With respect to that legislation, we want to hear further from industry and others in British Columbia so that we can develop the best legislation on this subject anywhere in the country.

A. Warnke: A supplemental. It also appears that the Schwindt commission recommends maintaining an expropriation board as it currently exists -- i.e., appointed by the government. When the government appoints its own jury to its own trial, how will this provide the sense of impartiality needed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure I understand where the member is going with this question. 

[ Page 4013 ]

The government, by way of order-in-council, also appoints Provincial Court judges, who make judgments about cases that often involve the provincial government. The expropriation board is clearly a neutral, independent, courtlike body which obviously is appointed by the government -- who else? -- and that independent board will continue to have a role. It's envisioned in Dr. Schwindt's report that the responsibility of the board would be extended to deal with the question of takings.

A. Warnke: There's another question I'd like to toss to the Attorney General. Since quite a bit of money has been spent -- I believe it's $160,000 -- on the Schwindt commission, I wonder if in fact the Attorney General thinks that this commission has been useful to him.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was astonished at the fact that the massive, comprehensive and excellent report that Dr. Schwindt produced was produced for only $158,000. When one considers what reports of this kind over the years in this province have cost the taxpayers, this is a bargain. The report is an excellent piece of work. I doubt very much whether the work that Dr. Schwindt has done on this very difficult issue is replicated anywhere else in the world. It is an excellent starting point for us as we begin the process of developing legislation around this subject.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FRASER VALLEY UNIVERSITY

L. Stephens: I rise this morning to give a private member's statement on the subject of universities and colleges, which is near and dear to my heart and to the heart of my constituents in Langley and the whole south Fraser region. This is a subject that has been front and foremost in my community for quite some time. It's an issue that those of us in the valley would like to see some action on, and we would also like to see more people involved in bringing together a group of people to make a Fraser Valley university happen.

The south Fraser region, made up of the communities of Delta, Langley, Richmond, Surrey and White Rock, is home to about 564,000 people. They represent 18 percent of the total population of the province. Between 1986 and 1992 the population grew by 109,000. This represents a 24 percent increase, with a 27 percent increase in the provincial population during the same period. So it's a very rapidly growing region of the province. In the next 20 years the south Fraser region is projected to grow by a further 320,000 people. The Surrey School District alone will grow by nearly 200,000 people by the year 2011.

As you can see, this is a problem that must be addressed as far as our post-secondary institutions are concerned. We must do something to lower the 30 percent dropout rate in our high schools, and we do have to have something for our 18- to 24-year-olds who are coming out of the public school system and need some training and skills. This is a problem that this government hasn't addressed and continues not to address. There are 53,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 24. These are the primary recipients of post-secondary education.

Kwantlen College is going to be opening in Langley in the fall of '93. The building is coming along nicely. They're having difficulty, because they don't know whether they're going to have operating funds, and they don't know whether the facility will be completely used and serviceable by the time they're scheduled to open. Kwantlen received only half of the provincial funding average despite serving the fastest-growing region of British Columbia. The month of August of this year brought a record 12,002 applications to the college from new and returning students, but the college is funded to serve 4,992 full-time equivalent students. Kwantlen received the equivalent of $49.08 per person from the government -- the lowest level of funding on a per capita basis for any college in British Columbia. The provincial average is $105. The goal of Kwantlen College is to reach the provincial average.

In September the Richmond campus opened at half of its capacity due to the lack of funding. We sincerely hope that this will not be the case in Langley. This comes at a time when the applications for university transfer programs at the colleges have more than doubled.

Kwantlen College was created in 1981 to serve the Surrey, Delta, White Rock, Langley and Richmond communities. In 1987 it adopted a five-year plan to acquire permanent facilities and encourage expansion. They have been working very hard to fundraise and acquire land and the necessary facilities and resources to make their vision of a Fraser Valley university and a Fraser Valley college region a reality. When the Newton campus opened in 1990, enrolment went up 39 percent. Two years after opening, the campus is 25 percent over capacity.

With the Langley campus opening next year, Richmond at half capacity and plans for Surrey phase two, space could be made available, but there is no operating funding. It's the chronic complaint of every one of the colleges: the operating funding is just not there.

Last year, four out of ten students didn't succeed in receiving the five courses they wanted. This college asked for additional funding for 1,000 more students this year, a 21 percent increase. It received a 9.5 percent increase instead. At that rate of growth, it will take Kwantlen 40 years to catch up to the provincial average. The college's long-term plans include future campuses in South Surrey and Delta. The Surrey campus is hoping to expand by 1,700 seats to meet these growing needs, but again the funding hasn't been received. If it isn't received in time to open in 1994, Surrey won't receive the seats it needs until 1997. These figures are just not acceptable, hon. Speaker.

We've got some difficulties in Langara, as we're all very well aware from yesterday and today. For some time we warned this government of the tremendous problems facing our colleges and universities. We've spoken of this time and again, and of the need for post-secondary education for our young people. We

[ Page 4014 ]

need these skilled workers to prepare for the jobs in the years ahead. And now, as administrators join faculty and students in the demonstration against this government....

[10:30]

The Speaker: Your time has expired, hon. member.

B. Jones: I wish to thank the member opposite for her comments on a critically important area for the future of this province. I think she did an eloquent job of reflecting the concerns of her community in the area of post-secondary education and the need for proper planning and proper support for the young people who will be the future of this province.

What the government faces is an inheritance problem. The current administration inherited from the previous administration, which I describe as basically an anti-education government for many years in this province -- and it's so typical of so many social policy areas of the previous administration. What we saw was 20 years of neglect.

The member opposite is absolutely right: the kind of neglect that happened for the last 20 years is catching up with us. I spent five years raising exactly the same issues that the member opposite has raised to try and persuade the previous administration to do a little more than play politics with post-secondary education, because of the importance of that issue.

What we saw with respect to the Fraser Valley was study after study after study, commissioned....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. A point of order from the member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: With reference to your remarks, this is purely and simply an unqualified and unprincipled political attack. Your instructions to this House, hon. Speaker, were to engage in a debate that is positive, not political.

Hon. R. Blencoe: On the point of order, hon. Speaker, I think it's really important, with respect to the Chair, that members be brought to order in terms of utilizing points of order correctly. This member was clearly making a statement. The member may disagree. He has every opportunity to disagree, but I don't think that should stop the member from speaking.

The Speaker: Thank you both, hon. members. It is not a point of order, but it's an opportunity to remind hon. members to avoid intemperate, immoderate language in the House.

Please continue, member for Burnaby North.

B. Jones: It's very clear that members opposite are sensitive. I think those areas of neglect over the last 20 years are well documented, and everybody understands that.

The member for Langley clearly pointed out the needs in that area. The growth in the Fraser Valley is six times that of the urban core. The population is expected to double in the next 25 years, yet what we saw from the previous administration was study after study. In fact, the last task force was appointed three days before the election call in 1991. That was not a serious attempt to address the very difficult situation faced due not only to growth in the Fraser Valley but also to participation rates. To find equally low participation rates, you would have to go to the Northwest Territories.

The need has been very clearly and strongly demonstrated in the past, in terms of the growth that has already happened and the growth potential for the future, and also in terms of the participation rates. We see an area that's underserved. The need is there, and it has to be addressed. It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when and where. This administration has a vision for the future of this province, and post-secondary education plays a key role in it. We must move as a province beyond the resource-based industries into the knowledge-based industries. What we see for the future of this province is hope, and this government and the minister responsible will do everything possible that the taxpayers can afford in order to resolve the pressing need for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley.

L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to hear the member for Burnaby North acknowledge that there is a serious problem in the Fraser Valley as far as post-secondary and university education are concerned. I note from his remarks of May 13, 1991, that he was acknowledging that it is the fastest-growing area in the province and asking the Socred government why they didn't do something about it. Hon. member, I'm putting that question to you today as well.

I want to talk a little about Langara. A number of members on this side of the House are very familiar with Langara campus -- some of them having taught there. There have been a myriad of problems at this campus going back some ten years, including that the buildings are decaying due to inadequate upkeep; equipment is becoming outdated and irrelevant; and there is extreme overcrowding in classrooms and office space. Some of the faculty members actually meet their students in a crowded hallway on chairs instead of in a proper office. I think all members can appreciate that this kind of thing simply shouldn't be happening today in our society.

I would like to encourage all members of the House, and particularly members on the government side, to press their colleagues -- in particular the Minister of Advanced Education -- to implement the Access for Equity and Opportunity Task Force report that was brought forward in August 1992. I know the minister is familiar with it, and other members opposite are as well. I would like to encourage you all to press forward with this initiative. Our students demand it, and the province does as well.

[ Page 4015 ]

CYCLING B.C. '92

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I am eager to begin my subject today, Cycling B.C.

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows is an area of rapid urban growth with transportation and environmental concerns. I spoke at length in a previous members' statement to the traffic problems of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, where every hour is rush hour. Improved highway access is required to service industry, and we need relief for our commuting workforce. We require good public transit, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and road improvements linked to transit and park-and-ride facilities. Our government knows it must go forward with light rapid transit to the northeast sector and conduct a serious trial of commuter rail from Vancouver to Mission.

We also need to accommodate bicycling. Many people already consider bicycling to be a valuable player in the transit arena, joining cars, buses and trains as a legitimate means of moving people around urban areas. I'm pleased that this government has taken up the challenge of finding ways in which bicycling can become a safe and attractive way of navigating our province.

While the Ministry of Transportation and Highways takes the leadership role, other ministries and many other stakeholders have taken part in formulating an interim cycling policy. There's also a close working relationship between the government and the Bicycling Association of British Columbia. Islands Trust, the B.C. Safety Council, ICBC traffic safety, the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C., the B.C. Trucking Association and the B.C. Taxi Association are all considered to be stakeholders in this issue and have all been consulted. This represents a truly holistic response to the issue of developing a cycling policy in B.C.

In the past, cycling policy has tended to focus on specific issues as they arose. For example, a signing policy was formulated when a cycling route was created on the Coquihalla Highway. It is apparent that cycling policy needs to reflect good principles of land use planning as well as the social and health benefits of it being a non-polluting form of transportation.

Municipalities have been very supportive of the local approach to cycling that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is advocating. This proposed policy would change existing policy to recognize the rights of cyclists to use the highway. Generally cyclists will be accommodated on all new or upgraded highways. Exclusions will be for safety reasons. Cycling needs will be considered at all stages of Ministry of Transportation projects, from design to construction and maintenance. The ministry will not preclude cyclists from ministry facilities without making provisions for appropriate alternative routes in consultation with user groups.

Funding of bikeways will reflect the jurisdictional responsibilities for the infrastructure. The ministry will maintain a year-long monitoring system to track the development and success of implementing the cycling policy, with input from all regions of the province.

In addition, the ministry helped sponsor a two-day cycling conference called Cycling B.C. '92. This conference was held at the end of October and was jointly sponsored by the Capital Regional District, the GVRD and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The title of the conference was "Focus on the Future." The issues of bicycling and health, bicycling education, whether to integrate bicycle paths, bicycling and the environment, and designing bicycle facilities were some of the sessions offered. Participants from Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Washington State joined those from various parts of B.C. This conference was a wonderful example of the continued interest and cooperation that the ministry has received from the many partners who play major roles in the implementation of a provincial cycling policy.

A representative for the Bicycling Association of B.C. talked about commuter cycling routes. The advantages and disadvantages of separate bike paths and separate bike lanes were discussed. Other issues were the pros and cons of bicycles sharing the road with other traffic and whether it's better to have bicycles using side streets or main roads. The ways in which commuters can be motivated to take their bikes instead of their cars were discussed. Educating commuters as to the advantage of cycling seemed to be the best way to start this process.

The chair of the Vancouver bicycle advisory committee talked about public involvement in designing bicycle facilities. Getting that involvement going is one of the roles of the bicycle advisory committee. The executive director of the Bicycle Association of B.C. addressed the issue of bikes as big business. By this she means that as more people use bicycles, more businesses are created to handle all the facets that go along with bicycling. Manufacturing bicycles and the clothing that bicyclists use, as well as articles like bike locks and stands, are examples of how bicycles can be big business.

Cycling is also a recognized competitive sport, and races bring spectators and money to communities. Adventure travel by bicycling is a tourism natural for B.C. as well.

Finally, I want to mention a presentation from B.C. Transit and the bike-and-ride program in the Vancouver regional transit system. This program tries to meet the needs and demands of a growing number of people who want to combine cycling with public transit. While this program is being concentrated in the Vancouver region, the Victoria Regional Transit Commission recently approved a similar program for the Victoria region. This is a wonderful example of people sharing knowledge and skills so as to not reinvent the wheel. B.C. Transit documented the policy changes with regard to bicycles and to SeaBus. Included was an evaluation of the service which indicated that people were finding the service useful, and hence they were using it.

The cycling community has been very supportive of the work done by B.C. Transit. Future program enhancements are being considered, such as expansion of the bicycle locker program, bringing bicycles onto SkyTrain and putting exterior racks on buses. Over-

[ Page 4016 ]

whelming enthusiasm has been raised over cycling. We've come a long way towards realizing the full cycling potential for British Columbia.

[10:45]

C. Serwa: I would have dearly loved to respond to the member on the government side on the previous member's statement, but nevertheless, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has covered rather a wide area when he initially indicated he was speaking about Cycling B.C. Perhaps it's a precursor of things to come in the province, and certainly with increased tax-loading on automobiles it was a very timely presentation. I won't expand on that, although I had written some remarks.

Cycling is well appreciated from a number of perspectives, certainly as far as health is concerned, and it was a facet that the member didn't expand on. It is exceedingly important, because good health is a product of good exercise. In my own community of Kelowna we have had an extensive program for the development of cycling paths and dedicated routes. Another community in Alberta -- Calgary, for example -- has an exceptionally good cycling path system within the community because of the riverbeds and parklands. They have an enormous number of cycling paths available, both for recreation as well as for commuters.

There are many things that we can do here in British Columbia to enhance that particular opportunity. The lower mainland has very severe problems with any type of commuter traffic, and that's recognized. Certainly the Ministry of Transportation and Highways recognizes the enormous difficulty of moving traffic in and out. The solution may be to utilize commuter bike paths to a degree, but that only works for a while. When you reflect that some commuters are travelling two hours, bicycle paths are probably inappropriate in that instance.

One of the real opportunities that we will have, and that I hope business and government will be looking at over the next few years, is the potential of moving business centres away from our densely populated urban areas. Government ministries, for example, don't have to be housed in Victoria. They don't have to be housed necessarily in Vancouver. With the enhanced communications that we have, there is the opportunity to take a ministry like Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and perhaps put the hard-rock section in the Nelson area, the energy section in an area of the province like Dawson Creek or Fort St. John and the coal section in Cranbrook. There are many things that can be done to reduce the congestion and problems that we have in the lower mainland and on southern Vancouver Island.

On the recreational and tourism aspects of cycling, this government can do a great deal to utilize rights-of-way, such as the Kettle Valley Railway right-of-way all the way from Hope into the interior of the province. We could create a world-class hiking and cycling trail. These are the types of initiatives that I think will bear fruit, not only immediately for the health of British Columbians but also for tourism and as a legacy for the generations that will follow us.

The only problem with cycling is, again going back to tax grabs.... It's my understanding that the federal government, in order to protect perhaps 100 or 200 workers who produce bicycles in Canada, is going to be increasing the taxes on bicycles by some 30 to 35 percent. That makes it far more difficult.

Mountain bikes have changed cycling dramatically, improved the recreational aspect and improved the type of terrain that cyclists can access. So in communities away from the lower mainland, they also provide an extraordinary opportunity, because even forest access roads and mountain hiking paths are splendid for the use of mountain cycles. Bicycling, as a sport and recreation and potential for commuter use in the province, has a very strong future.

W. Hartley: I thank the member for Okanagan West for his remarks.

Once finalized, provincial cycling policy will recognize bicycle travel as an efficient and healthy use of the provincial infrastructure. There are, of course, enormous engineering challenges, and in the meantime cyclists have real problems in terms of safety, mainly because our roads have been designed to be used only by cars. While bicycle commuting and travelling can be considered marginal at this time, it certainly has the capacity to expand. It's a healthy alternative that is good for the environment.

I hope that this statement on Cycling '92 has informed members about not only the actual cycling policy that this government and others are developing but also the process by which this is happening. It is no easy feat to get large numbers of people together, each of whom represents different interests, and have them working cooperatively on a task of this magnitude. Alongside community groups and municipalities, the Ministries of Attorney General; Environment, Lands and Parks; Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing; and Health have joined Transportation and Highways in coming together to formulate a workable cycling policy. As well, the Ministry of Tourism, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit were consulted.

Hon. Speaker, I think this is a fine example of the way in which this government wants to continue to work with the people in B.C. It is a way which enhances similarities and eases differences. There are many goals common to many people who would benefit from this fine example.

C. Tanner: On the subject at hand, hon. Speaker, I think there's a couple of minutes left in the debate.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, there was some time left during the reply portion, at which time I could have allowed the member to speak; but once the member whose private member's statement it is has started to respond to the reply, that option no longer exists.

C. Tanner: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. It was out of courtesy that I left the speakers who were notified to speak, and I thought it would be the decent thing to wait until they finished.

[ Page 4017 ]

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, but it's not the practice of this House to allow banking of the sections of time that the members have.

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on international relief. Two days after Remembrance Day is an appropriate time to consider our position in world affairs. War has not ceased. Indeed, although Canada is not officially at war, we are still concerned that much of the world is at war, internally and externally. For a very significant percentage of the world's population, there is no peace.

The Red Cross has just sent out a flyer which reads:

"Dear Friend:

"It's been said that for the 6.5 million Somalis devastated by drought and civil war, waiting has become an obsession; waiting for food, waiting for help, waiting for the civil war and the drought to end. And if these are too long in coming, waiting to die.

"In response to Somalia's desperate plight, the Red Cross is currently undertaking the largest relief operation in its history. The Red Cross is feeding more than one million people per day at 600 Red Cross community kitchens throughout the country."

I remember a recent news report that said 40,000 children die each day around the world. Think of one's own son or daughter, and the implication hits home.

The Red Cross letter continues:

"But even this enormous effort is not enough. Every day 1,000 Somali children die from famine-related causes. You have probably seen these images on the television and wondered how you could help.

"We need your support to continue our relief effort. Fifty dollars will help feed 100 people daily."

The black type says: "We need your support."

Somalia is but one of the many countries in similar circumstances. Some in our own cities, towns and villages face similar circumstances. Our veterans fought not only to end war but also to bring justice and peace. Let's be frank: we have failed to follow in their footsteps.

Last spring the international aid groups in this city had a reception for MLAs to highlight their participation in responding to world needs and to encourage our support. Individually, no doubt, we have responded in varying degrees, yet I have failed to hear the concern raised for our collective action in the Legislature. Thus I raise it now.

Whenever we discuss international affairs, which is not all that often, it seems to be in terms of international trade and what we can gain from it or in relation to immigration and how this will benefit Canada, acknowledging that we have been relatively open to refugees but often fail them on their arrival. I would suggest that it is now time for us to do much more. For if our vision is only inward on ourselves, it will fail.

I personally would be interested in hearing from other members of this Legislature about developing a strategy of responsible participation in responding to international needs, in some positive partnerships. Who is relating to the federal government on these issues? Who is carrying on the dialogue with all the internationally concerned groups with whom we met last spring? It is time -- past time -- to meet with them again, at our invitation, not only to visit but also to begin to develop a strategy of action.

It is interesting to me that at many of the meetings concerning international aid, a high percentage of attendees are our youth who want to fight a new war -- not to end war -- of winning a just way of life for all. As elected representatives in B.C., it seems that we have a responsibility to respond to those youth and to support their concerns and actions.

Let us have a partnership that challenges inequalities both within and without our province. I personally would like feedback so that we might work together to take responsible action in meeting international needs. To this end, I recommend that we focus on the children of the world and on those who support them. Even as I speak, 40,000 children are on the verge of dying. What more needs to be said? The question is not whether we must act, but how. Whose responsibility? Yours and mine.

Many years ago Dr. Sid Gilchrist, who dedicated his life to service in Africa, was invited to speak at a church gathering in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. We waited to hear him with great anticipation. He looked over the group and said quite simply: "I have been asked to speak. I have a very simple message. Whatever you are going to do, do it now." Then he sat down. I had never heard a more powerful message. I repeat: whatever we are going to do, let's do it now.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery this morning there is a group of students from the Burnaby-Willingdon riding, which is the Speaker's riding. They are here with their teacher, Miss Reid, and they're accompanied by a group of students from Montreal, Quebec. I spoke briefly with them outside, and they said that the French immersion courses they have been taking are most valuable in these kinds of exchange programs. They're here on the Voyageur '92 program. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Beattie: I'd like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara for his eloquent articulation about the concerns and the well-being of children around the world who are starving. We see it every day on our televisions.

I know that at times we tend to pigeonhole and place into categories the types of efforts that should be made, and give responsibility to the federal government or the United Nations. The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara is suggesting that it is the responsibility of all of us to address the concerns of the starving and the needy in the world. I agree with him on that issue. When I was active in the peace group in my own community, we often asked the local municipality to declare our area a nuclear-free zone. We were often told that it was not the jurisdiction or the mandate of the 

[ Page 4018 ]

municipal council to do that. But in the end the more rational, reasonable and humanitarian approach won the day, and they accepted those responsibilities.

[11:00]

I think that aid is very important, and in the short term it's something that we as a government should encourage local groups to continue doing. The Red Cross.... The federal government should continue to divert Canadian tax dollars into assisting people around the world, and the provincial government should be involved in that as well. But I think that in the long term we need some structural changes, which include the trading patterns that we set up in the world. When we talk about trade, I don't think that we have to restrict ourselves to merely the accumulation of wealth for us in this province or in this country. When we see the poverty that not just Third World countries but countries in eastern Europe are experiencing, we recognize that our situation is incredibly wealthy. We are in a marvellous state of affairs vis-�-vis our personal health and our national wealth, but we do have problems in this country. One of the reasons that, as a government, we don't support NAFTA, for example -- the North American free trade agreement -- is that we see a continual accumulation of wealth within the North American continent and western Europe trade blocs that restrict.... We believe that trade has to be much more altruistic. We have to think about the whole world when we embark upon our trade agreements.

From a provincial perspective, and that can be extrapolated into the national perspective too, it's very important that all our actions as a community -- our expenditures for economic development, our health care programs, and especially as we exploit our timber and fishing resources -- recognize that we are stewards of the resource, not only for the people of British Columbia but for all the people in the world. There is ownership of the world's resources by all people in the world. It's important that we structure our policies and development to recognize that in the future we want to see the world attain some kind of equality or equity in standards of living.

As we move toward that complex goal I wish to throw my support behind the member for Vancouver-Langara. I would like to be one of the members from this Legislature who works with him to help further the cause of international aid and relief, and a policy of sharing the world's resources for the good of all mankind.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments and the offer of involvement from the member for Okanagan-Penticton and will look forward to following up on that in a practical way.

There are many things that could be done in partnership planning. One of the realities of the groups that came to visit us in the Legislative Assembly last year was to make sure that we were aware of the programs in which they were engaged, and that we would cooperate in conveying that information to the community. There is a way in which we can partner with these people who often feel that they're alone in what they're trying to do, that they're working against the system and not with the system. So it's important that the system we represent reaches out in such a way that they know there is cooperation, understanding and encouragement. Also, there are federal and international connections that can be made through government that could be helpful to these groups as they undertake their programs. As mentioned by the hon. member, communication and interaction across the borders of the world is necessary if the real solutions are to be found around the world.

At one time there was an agricultural aid fund within the provincial government whereby local bodies could raise matching funds. The government would match those funds, and then they were matched again by CIDA, which gave an established working relationship and involvement. I know that issue has been raised and will be raised again.

It's not always the amount of money that's important, although that's certainly significant. It's the very fact that there is a process of cooperation and partnership so that there's an educational understanding and a flow of resources and personnel. I trust that we will be able to develop that understanding so that when we are discussing our own issues, whether it's health, education or labour, we will be able to put that in a context far broader than our own. I'm sure that as we do, we will gain benefits from it.

As people have gone to work with other people around the world, one of the messages they have received is, first of all, a question: what are you doing about similar conditions in your own country? If we have been able to show them what we have been doing in our own country, they have said: "Thank you. We can learn from that." But if we have had to say, "We're not doing anything about those conditions in our own country," they have simply said: "You go home, and we'll come with you and help you do it at your place." There is that kind of exchange in international relationships. It doesn't always go in one direction; we learn as well.

HEALTHY LEARNING

F. Randall: I am pleased to address the House today on the school meals program, an initiative of our government that I and all of my colleagues are very proud to support. The health and education of our children are top priorities in our government. Good nutrition is fundamental to a healthy learning environment.

The school meals program provides funding to assist local school boards to provide nutritious, affordable meals for schoolchildren across the province. The funding is targeted to schools with the greatest need and where there is a high level of community involvement. Our goal is to work with parents, families and communities in developing and implementing the program. We believe that the program must be managed at the local level to best meet local needs.

Elementary-school-age children comprise over 10 percent of the population of British Columbia. Their health is critical to their future and to the future of this province. The importance of assisting children to 

[ Page 4019 ]

acquire appropriate health knowledge and skills throughout their school years and particularly in the early years of their development cannot be overstated.

In the current school year, funding for the B.C. school meals program has been expanded significantly, to $11.6 million from last year's level of $5.9 million. It will reach 40,000 schoolchildren in 152 schools across the province -- an increase of 86 additional schools since the program was announced in January. Our government will continue to fund meal programs in future years. It is a firm and ongoing commitment.

Three schools are participating in the program in my constituency. They are Stride Avenue Elementary, which receives $77,440; Edmonds Elementary-Secondary, $73,399; and Twelfth Avenue Elementary, $80,975. The funding levels are based on the cost of providing nutritious meals, taking into account the size of the school, and include a provision for staffing and equipment costs, if required. Currently a qualifying school with 250 students would receive approximately $74,000, while a qualifying school of 450 students would receive about $112,000.

It is important that school meal programs be community-driven initiatives that involve parents and children at all stages of planning -- for example, implementation, evaluation and choosing whether or not to offer hot or cold lunches, breakfasts or snacks. In so doing, the program must fulfil approximately one-half of a student's daily nutritional requirements, and it must include a process to evaluate effectiveness.

Proper nutrition is vital for enabling children to learn. For far too long a number of our children have been going to school hungry. This is a deplorable reality in a society as affluent as ours.

Schools in partnership with parents and communities share the responsibility for ensuring that the conditions that promote learning are present. This program overcomes the financial constraints which have prevailed in the past. Our government is committed to addressing this issue and making sure our children are not deprived of the opportunity to learn because they are hungry. The school meals program complements the Healthy Schools project sponsored by the Ministry of Health, which focuses on making schools a healthy and positive place for students and teachers to learn and work.

The concept of health refers to not only the physical environment of a school but also the physical and mental well-being of the students. If students are to have optimum conditions in which to learn, they need a clean and safe environment and a personal sense of well-being. If students are actively involved and there is a strong sense of community in the school, their ability to learn will be improved. Furthermore, the integration of a school meals program with nutrition education can result in children developing good lifetime nutritional habits at an early age to carry them through adulthood.

Furthermore, school districts and communities are encouraged to consider cultural variations when selecting food within a community, to consider the environmental issues involved in storing, preparing and serving food, and to purchase foods grown and processed locally. The goal of the program is to create a community focus where parents, teachers and communities develop, implement and manage their own particular meal programs designed to meet their own local requirements in providing good nutrition and creating healthy learning environments. This will ensure that all our children fully benefit from British Columbia's educational system.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He's certainly touched upon a very important issue involving learning. I know that all members in this House are committed to the importance of learning in this province.

In particular, the Liberal caucus certainly endorses healthy education and the school meals program. We on this side are never remiss, of course, in applauding the government when it does the right things, and I can assure you we do applaud the government for the school meals program. I am pleased to hear, as the member mentioned, that $11.6 million has been set aside this year for the program, and that it's been expanded now to include 152 schools throughout British Columbia. I say to the government: well done, and let's keep up the good work.

Let me make some remarks on some particular things on which the member commented in his statement. There's no question that we must all be aware -- when I say we, every one of us in this province, not just the people in this House -- of the continuing need for such a program. I think back to my school days. I was fortunate. I grew up in a fairly affluent community, and I guess I have to add that I represent a community that is reasonably well off in comparison, no doubt, to others throughout B.C. However, that does not lessen the importance. I draw the members' attention to my personal background because at times I may be guilty of not appreciating the needs of students throughout British Columbia and other communities who may not have the same advantages that I enjoyed as I grew up and, I guess, my children enjoy as they go through school. Certainly I personally endorse the continuing program, and hopefully it will be able to expand.

[11:15]

As an example -- the member did touch upon it -- we needn't restrict ourselves to lunch programs, which are probably what we think of with the school meals program. Obviously it would also be appropriate, as is done in some schools, that a breakfast program be set up. Again I think of my personal experience. My idea of breakfast is three cups of coffee. Well, that's not the best way to start off the day. It is certainly very appropriate that if it can be set up, a wholesome breakfast be served to students, because the better the start to their school day, obviously, the better their learning experience. I don't think anyone would question that.

The member also commented on the partnership aspect of setting up and maintaining the program, and that partnership is between parents, students, administrators of the school districts and, of course, government itself. There's no question that that's a very healthy partnership, and it has a very laudable objective. I would also say that it fits very well into the whole 

[ Page 4020 ]

scheme, whereby the community can get properly involved in such programs, so that they are truly serving the needs of a community, as every community will have different needs within the school program.

Again I applaud the member for his remarks. He's certainly drawn them to our attention, and we can never emphasize too much the ongoing need for such programs. I'm certainly pleased to personally endorse the program, and as I say, the Liberal caucus does likewise.

F. Randall: I certainly would like to say thank you very much to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for his recognition of the program that this government has introduced. It is certainly being very well received; it is receiving strong support in the community. I'm very pleased that there is that kind of support for the program.

In closing, I would just like to say that if the member for West Vancouver-Capilano wishes lunch one day, I will treat him.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a restful weekend -- for long debates, of course, coming up next week. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:18 a.m.


[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada