1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 17, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 3
[ Page 6309 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Fox: I'm extremely privileged this afternoon to have the opportunity to introduce to the House two individuals from the city of Prince George, Vic and Lenore Bowman. Vic was a council member for Prince George and is very active now with the Prince George Construction Association. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House some notable constituents and neighbours: Ms. Anne Marshall, who is also a member of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission in B.C.; her son, Mr. John Bell; Ms. Julia Harrison and Mr. Teddy Harrison; Ms. Alison Perry, my daughter; my wife, Beth Chambers, also known as Beth Perry; my son, Mr. Dustin Perry, and his friend Mr. Hayden Kremer. I wish all members of the House to make them abundantly welcome.
C. Serwa: Joining us in the public galleries today is a very special individual, Master Jamie Wannop. This is Jamie's first trip away from Kelowna. His visit is an expression of an unusually early interest in British Columbia politics. Jamie, who will be five weeks old tomorrow, is accompanied by my constituents and his parents, Peter and Dee Dee Wannop. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Symons: Visiting us today in the gallery are approximately 56 grade 7 students from James Gilmore Elementary School in Richmond. Twenty-five of these students are exchange students from Pierrefonds, Quebec, our twin city. Mr. Ty Binset is accompanying the class to Victoria. Would the House please welcome both the students from Richmond and those from the province of Quebec.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. John Lee, constituents of mine in Chilliwack who have come to the House to observe the festivities. Would you please make them most welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 28, which deals with four items. Under the Utilities Commission Act, it will allow the British Columbia Utilities Commission to provide participant assistance funding to interveners and interested parties as part of regulatory and project review proceedings. Under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the amendments will implement six changes, including: administrative and housekeeping items, fee and refund changes and an allowance for time extensions for those holding petroleum and natural gas tenders during land use studies. Under the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, the amendments will change that part of the act which governs B.C. Gas Inc.'s corporate structure, to allow B.C. Gas Inc. to form a holding company which will hold its utility and non-utility operations as BCUC requested in its August 5, 1992, decision. Lastly, under the Energy Efficiency Act, it will allow standards to be set for products which control or affect the use of energy, such as thermostats, shower heads and windows and doors. It will also strengthen reporting requirements from manufacturers on the energy efficiency of products regulated under the act.
Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, this bill amends a number of acts that my ministry is responsible for. The bill is the result of discussions with a wide range of groups. These amendments address issues that provide necessary improvements and corrections to ministry legislation. The bill amends the Waste Management Act to provide for better environmental protection, updates the Land Act to recognize the Crown land registry and provide more effective enforcement for trespass on Crown land, continues the process of decentralization under the Water Act by allowing a licensee to give notice of a licence abandonment to a regional water manager, and clarifies certain sections of the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act to bring them into compliance with administrative practices. These amendments will also allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exempt certain rafts or classes of rafts from the application of the act. Finally, the bill will amend the Wildlife Act to address a recent judicial ruling.
Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled
[ Page 6310 ]
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. B. Barlee: This bill -- Bill 24 -- amends two existing statutes: the Animal Disease Control Act and the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act.
[2:15]
Bill 24 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.
R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline.
R. Chisholm: There is an environmentally friendly alternative to MMT in gasoline. Ethanol-blended fuels would reduce carbon monoxide by 25 percent, carbon dioxide by 5.9 percent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 percent and ground-level ozone by 5.3 percent.
Canada is a net importer of fuels. Our cheapest and most economical conventional crude oil reserves are being depleted. By including grain alcohol up to 10 percent with gasoline, the country's fuel reserves security will be improved. When added to gasoline at a ratio of one part ethanol to nine parts gasoline, it means that it boosts the octane. Up to two barrels of crude oil are saved for each barrel of ethanol used in gasohol. Rural and small-town B.C., too, will gain financially from increased employment in the ethanol plants that would have to be built and operated. In turn, the depopulation in B.C. rural areas would be reduced.
In the United States, where the ethanol fuel ethic is well entrenched and expanding, there are some 60 ethanol plants in operation. Such technology, if developed in British Columbia, could lead to a potentially huge export market for product, by-product and technology. A state-of-the-art ethanol fuel plant in Decatur, Illinois, uses exhaust CO 2 to fertilize plants in adjacent greenhouses. But the process squeezes more than ethanol from grains. It also produces a by-product -- a high-protein mash that includes original vitamins and minerals which can be used as animal feed or as an additive to low-nutrition human food. This perfectly clean and healthy by-product can be dried and used as flour for cookies, biscuits or bread.
There appears to be no letup in the battle between the U.S. and Europe over world grain markets. British Columbia grain farmers are a major casualty, caught in crossfires. British Columbia government incentives to build a full-blown ethanol fuel industry to keep pace with the subsidized U.S. ethanol industry would give British Columbia farmers a new and badly needed domestic market for their grain.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member still needs to move one motion related to the bill. The Chair was hesitant to interrupt, but the member's time has expired. Members introducing bills need to remember that only the purpose of the bill may be discussed at this time, and debate cannot be entered into. With that reminder, I ask the member to move his motion.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M219 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.
W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. In less than 48 hours 110,000 students in this province will be the victims of strikes. The weekend came and went in Vancouver, and teachers are still on the bricks. The minister's own mediator ended his recommendations by suggesting that while there was no more money for education, somehow we were going to see a wage settlement that would see the loss of 250 teachers in the province. What concrete steps is the government taking today to end these strikes in British Columbia, which are affecting more than 100,000 students in our province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member has summarized very clearly that the taxpayers of British Columbia are saying that there is no money. This government provided more generously than any other province in its Education budget, and we believe that the school board has sufficient funds in its budget to negotiate a reasonable settlement with their employees.
W. Hurd: A question, then, to the Minister of Education about the harm that these strikes are causing our students. Does the Minister of Education accept the idea of her comrade, Elsie McMurphy of the BCTF, that in fact there is no preponderance of truth that students are being affected by strikes? If she doesn't believe that, will she ask the Minister of Labour to order the teachers back to work in this province so we can get the kids back in the classroom where they belong?
Hon. A. Hagen: This afternoon the Minister of Labour will be meeting with the school board in one of the districts affected to seek some further information from them on the reasons the mediation report was not acceptable. We will continue to work with that minister and with the Labour Relations Board to ensure that our children are in school and learning.
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The reports of front-line workers in Social Services regarding poor management within the ministry filled 24 single-spaced pages. Sixteen new workers have been appointed to deal with fraud outside the ministry. The recommendations deal mostly with poor management within the ministry. How many new
[ Page 6311 ]
workers have been appointed to deal with the mismanagement within the ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's very important that we distinguish between fraud and administrative error. The report dealt primarily....
An Hon. Member: I would hope there's a difference.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would feel a great deal more comforted if people would deal with the facts -- and that is what I am dealing with.
Specific to the member's question, the fraud initiative that I announced a week and a half ago added five specialists and a Crown prosecutor to our 35-member fraud investigation team. The 16 additional people that the member refers to has to do with the complement that we have put in place in our audit team to enhance our ability as a ministry to deal with administrative error. That was directed by the auditor general's report of 1991.
V. Anderson: This infamous report on administrative error and fraud states clearly that there is a crisis management approach in place within the ministry. Key to the failure of this management is the lack of enough front-line workers with the power to meet and deal with the abuses that are there. Will the minister reassign present ministry staff to at least double the number of front-line workers so that they can begin to solve the situation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm happy to let the member know -- and I understand that we have not yet entered into estimates; that's next week -- that there are additional FTE allotments in this budget to enhance our ability to support front-line workers.
As for the member's request to double our staff, the member must understand that we have almost a thousand staff in the field now. To double that would be a significant extra cost to the system, funds that we do not have. Nor do I believe would that begin to deal with these issues that are of concern to all of us. We are dealing with those concerns in a number of ways; many of them are technical enhancements using computer technologies.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister didn't hear that I asked her to reassign staff, not to appoint new staff.
An Hon. Member: She doesn't listen very well.
V. Anderson: The question is to the Premier. Since we have ample proof of mismanagement within this ministry -- the minister having staff recommendations that she does not even bother to read, much less respond to -- and since we have increasing demands from both staff and taxpayers that there be a major change in the management, will the Premier today undertake to replace this minister so that we will have a minister who can and will make the required management changes?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it's unfortunate that the opposition has said the Minister of Social Services didn't listen to the last question. They haven't been listening to the answers for the last two weeks. If they had been listening to those answers, they would have heard very clearly that this government has acted for a number of months now on the auditor general's recommendations to deal with welfare fraud -- both the organized rings and the individuals who are abusing the goodwill of the people of British Columbia. They would have heard that on the recommendations of the auditor general, there have been 16 new audit staff added to deal with administrative error and waste. They would have heard that resources have been enhanced to help front-line staff sort out who is genuinely in need and who isn't; and to then help a lot of our citizens get off welfare, get trained and get back into the workforce again.
C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister must be aware that those employed in the forestry sector are concerned with the area required for a reserve for the spotted owl. Does the minister agree with the Minister of Forests that 200 hectares, or 480 acres, is sufficient as an old-growth set-aside around each active spotted owl nest?
Hon. J. Cashore: The member is well aware that the Ministries of Environment and Forests are involved in an ongoing process to address the issue of harvesting guidelines relating to the spotted owl. We have the spotted owl recovery team, which has input from various sectors. This is a very....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I'm sure that the minister is just winding up his comments.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it's been very difficult to make any comments because there's been so much noise in the House. I'm sure the hon. member is aware that this is a very difficult issue. Officials in both ministries, as well as members of the public, are working together on it. We are doing the very best we can to come forward with the appropriate guidelines. I'll conclude with that.
C. Serwa: Again to the Minister of Environment, I think the minister must be aware that his own officials have suggested that an area of approximately 2,100 hectares, or almost eight square miles, be set aside for each spotted owl nest. I understand what he said about a public process that is going on. Nevertheless, is the minister prepared to repudiate his own officials' report at the present time?
[ Page 6312 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Clearly this hon. member is getting way ahead of the very appropriate steps that are taking place. As I said before, there is discussion, consultation and technical work being carried on involving both ministries as well as members of the public. It would simply be inappropriate for me to get ahead of that process and start commenting on what is not yet a final result.
C. Serwa: The ongoing consultative process has to have a finite time limit. There is scientific evidence available to your staff and certainly to the Minister of Forests. What, hon. minister, is the time line for this particular process to conclude and relieve the anxiety that permeates the employees in the forestry sector?
Hon. J. Cashore: For instance, starting on April 29 and proceeding through until June 15 there is some ongoing survey work. So there is a lot of technical work that's still ongoing. A final date at this time is simply not available. I remind the hon. member that there's a great deal of work going into this and that it's being carried out as quickly as is reasonably possible.
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister confirm that income earned off the farm is a consideration when the government dramatically increases fees and licences?
An Hon. Member: He doesn't know the answer. He doesn't understand.
R. Chisholm: Does the minister agree with his Minister of Finance, who told the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that a whopping 24 percent increase in range fees and 56 percent water licence hikes -- just to name a few -- were justified by income made off the farm?
[2:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: All increases in fees and rates are taken into consideration, regardless of their income, and some of these fees are being reassessed now. They are being examined by a committee of this government, and word will come down to the cattlemen in due time.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: The minister knows that ranch income is down 18 percent. How can the minister justify these exorbitant increases to farmers who have to take other jobs just to survive on the farm?
Hon. B. Barlee: On the contrary, ranch income is not down 18 percent. I don't know where you got those figures. You had better reach into the hat and get a more accurate one. That is incorrect entirely.
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Labour Relations Board has refused to release its findings on the request of Vancouver Island North School District that grade 12 be declared an essential service -- the reason being that, helpfully, in that case they settled the dispute. My question to the minister: will she ask the Labour Relations Board to release those findings because there are so many other grade 12 students who are out of school now and will be facing provincial exams very soon?
Hon. A. Hagen: To the Opposition House Leader, I believe there has been a request to the Labour Relations Board from other boards that are involved in labour disputes to consider essential service designations for grade 12 and requests that those rulings be available in the near future. So that matter, from the information I have, is still before the Labour Relations Board at this time.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Education, while I appreciate that other boards are making the same request, I think it would certainly be very helpful for all of us, both in the House and all through this province, to have a ruling on this so that a precedent can be set, and we can get the school kids back into the classroom.
However, my question to the minister. We not only have a very serious problem with the largest district on strike, but the second-largest district, Surrey, is quite likely to be out on Wednesday. And we still see no action from this government or this minister. Will the minister tell the House today what positive action is going to be taken to get the school situation settled?
Hon. A. Hagen: A great deal of positive action is taking place across the province. There are mediators in a number of districts, including the district of Surrey -- the district that the member just referred to. As I noted to an earlier questioner this afternoon, the Minister of Labour is meeting this afternoon with the Vancouver board to consider the issues that are of concern to that board in the report of the special mediator from the Labour Relations Board. Most boards in the province that are involved with ongoing negotiations are receiving direct assistance from the Labour Relations Board in mediation, and most of those boards continue to work on arriving at those agreements. Where there is strike action, as there is today in Vancouver, the Minister of Labour is acting to seek a resolution as quickly as possible.
R. Chisholm: I would like to table a letter from the Minister of Finance and documents from the Ministry of Agriculture pertaining to my question.
Leave granted.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call Committee of Supply, Sections A and B.
[ Page 6313 ]
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 47: minister's office, $419,400 (continued).
The Chair: Shall the vote pass?
I was too quick. The member for Richmond East.
L. Reid: You're overzealous, hon. Chair. I thank you for the opportunity.
I want to make reference to the merger between Vancouver General Hospital and University Hospital. In that University Hospital is not a stand-alone site, it seems there is some opportunity for us to discuss the process by which that decision was reached. I'd like to have the minister's comments on the decision.
Hon. E. Cull: The process used to reach the decision was consultation with the various parties at University Hospital, UBC site, the teaching faculty in the health professions at the University of British Columbia, the dean of the medical school, the president of the university and the CEO and board of Vancouver General Hospital.
From the earliest days of the Shaughnessy task force's work, it has been an issue to decide what the governance would be for University Hospital, UBC site. When the University Hospital board was replaced with the transition coordinator and public administrator, Mr. Bert Boyd, that removed the board for not only the Shaughnessy site but also UBC, and some decisions had to be made about the future of that particular site. From the beginning, the options have been publicly announced and publicly discussed.
During my meetings with the University Hospital people and the University of British Columbia representatives over the last two weeks, we talked about the two options: a merge with VGH or a stand-alone option with its own board. As a result of extensive consultation with all of the parties affected, a decision was finally made to go to the merged option. It allows for the greatest administrative savings -- approximately $5 million -- and makes sense for a number of other health care considerations in terms of the size and the viability of the UBC site.
The member may recall that this University Hospital was actually merged with Shaughnessy some years ago because of real concerns about its ability to be an effective organization on its own as a teaching hospital, and some concerns about the economic viability of it and its ability to carry out its function. Not to just dwell on the savings and the negative aspects, tremendous opportunities exist with a merged organization. It has a totally revamped board to reflect a new institution entirely; not VGH with UBC added to it, but something new that looks at what will be the largest teaching hospital in the province, and the ability to really start to align teaching and clinical programs in such a way that we can, as the dean of the school said, become the pre-eminent teaching hospital in Canada.
L. Reid: Is there some documentation available that supports your cost saving of $5 million?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there is.
L. Reid: I would ask the minister to make a reasonable cost accounting available to the opposition. From the minister's presentation, it seems that the merger is somehow going to improve care. I'm not clear about the process. It seems that now we're going to strike another task force. Is that another belated attempt at process, or are you prepared to assure us today that there was a reasonable process in place?
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to make the cost savings information available to the member. There are two processes that were announced along with the merger. One is a review of the clinical programs offered at VGH and the UBC site of University Hospital by Ms. Ruth Robinson, a senior health partner with Peat Marwick. The intent is to have an outside expert lead some of the thinking that has to take place when two organizations are brought together and to determine whether there's any restructuring of programs -- how they're offered, where their specialties are, where their focus is -- that can allow the new institution to do a better job than these two institutions have been doing separately.
That is an important part of the overall consultative process we've been using around this merger, because the message I heard very clearly from some of the people -- certainly not all, but some -- at the UBC site was that they were concerned about being swallowed up. I want to make absolutely clear that we have restructured the board so that of the 17 board members, five are appointees coming from the University of British Columbia, five are appointees coming from a list of people who represent the community and the remaining seven are representatives appointed by the government, as would normally be appointed to the board of Vancouver General. We have restructured this board so that the concerns of University Hospital are recognized. One of the things we wanted to ensure in making the announcement was the guarantee that emergency services stay at the UBC site, that UBC remains an acute care hospital with the appropriate facilities to meet the needs of its community. Ms. Robinson's work will be to help the two institutions and their new management do whatever realigning is needed to provide effective care.
The second process that's been put in place is equally important, but as with the work Ms. Robinson is doing, it had to follow a decision about merger or no merger; that decision had to trigger the other things. The second process is a community task force to determine how we can best integrate health services for the west side of Vancouver and make sure there is community involvement in these hospitals. While they are teaching hospitals and tertiary-level facilities providing services to all of British Columbia, they also are community
[ Page 6314 ]
hospitals and have to provide services to people who live in Vancouver. They also, even at the tertiary level, have to integrate with the community support services available in Vancouver. So we are going to put together a task force to look at how best to do that. One of its responsibilities will be to give us advice on how to select five individuals to represent the community on the new, restructured board.
L. Reid: The only other issue I think we need to elaborate on is the disruption to patient service. Certainly any change, planned or otherwise, will cause some disruption of service. How would you characterize the disruption to patient services as a result of this merger?
Hon. E. Cull: The effect on patient service will be minimal, because we are looking at an administrative change and savings here, and a change of governance. I don't think most patients notice when individuals on a board of trustees change. They often don't notice when a CEO or senior management is changed, unless, of course, the individuals who take on those positions do either a much better or much worse job than was being done before. We are dealing here with highly skilled professionals in the administrative area. I would imagine that any reassignment of duties would not materially impact upon patient services. Unlike the situation at Shaughnessy, where programs are going to be physically moved and there is some real concern on the part of patients, they should see very little immediate impact as a result of the merger.
[2:45]
L. Fox: I want to ask a few questions around Victoria General Hospital. In discussion with some people in the pediatric department there, I found a lot of concern -- and I'm sure the minister is aware of it -- that the administration has decided to move that department from the fourth floor down to the third floor. That would substantially reduce the amount of floor space and the amount of opportunity to treat those patients appropriately. Of course, part of the rationale that the administration is using -- and why it's an appropriate question to the minister -- is budget restraints. But in the present situation they have a three-bed unit, plus an isolation room. They have two nurses on in each shift. They have four overlap beds which allow for some overnight and some extra treatment. They presently have room for their crash cart because, as I understand it, it's very important in response to emergencies. They also have a grieving room at their disposal, where they can take families to deal with the very traumatic situation that their family member is in. When they are moved down to the third floor, they will have three beds and two rooms. It's an extreme concern to the chief of pediatrics. In fact, a week ago he suggested that if this move goes forward, he's going to resign his position. If a doctor's prepared to take that kind of step, obviously it has to be quite a concern.
All I have is a very limited, basic knowledge of the circumstances because I only received this information on Friday, and I haven't had a chance to get over to the hospital and review it. Given these kinds of circumstances -- this particular hospital doesn't just deliver to the Victoria region; they service clients from all up and down the Island -- if their three beds are full, obviously people will have to be shipped to Vancouver in order to receive care at additional costs. Is there any kind of process that the minister or the ministry uses to review the operations of specialty units such as this in a large hospital on an ongoing basis?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll answer the direct question: is there a process to review this? The answer is yes. All of the hospitals have to submit their budget to us for approval, and that would indicate quite clearly in it any changes in terms of closing beds, reducing programs, adding programs or what have you. We will be going through that process with GVHS and all the other hospitals very soon when they submit their budgets.
This particular piece of information -- I realize it came to your attention on Friday -- is two or three weeks old in terms of the announcement that was made by the hospital. Unfortunately, I don't recall all of the numbers around the details. What I do recall, though, from receiving the information from the CEO of the hospital, is that the beds being consolidated reflect a very low utilization rate. I wish I could remember the precise percentage rate. I've been told it's 60 percent, which means that 40 percent of the time there was no need for those beds. They're trying to consolidate the amount of space and beds and time to use them more effectively.
The message all hospitals are working with right now, and the objective they're trying to work towards, is that while it would be nice to have that kind of excess capacity available in our system, we simply can't afford it. If the facilities are there but are not being used and there are other needs elsewhere, either in the hospital -- undoubtedly there are some at GVHS -- or in the broader health care system, we really should be making sure that we're not wasting money by not using it to the fullest extent. That goes for staff, equipment, space and all the rest of it. I know that GVHS is probably one of the best managed hospitals in British Columbia -- it certainly ranks near the top -- and they would not be making decisions that would offload their patients onto Vancouver. GVHS understands full well its role as the regional facility for all of Vancouver Island and even for some places up the coast, and I know that their planning has taken that into consideration.
L. Fox: The message I got out of this, and probably the one that has bothered me throughout the estimates -- the Liberal Health critic has also suggested that it's something that was lacking in the ongoing change in decision -- is that there was no consultation with the staff in the development of these new initiatives. They're not in favour of them. The administration suggests that the medical staff are in favour and that this has been done in cooperation with them, but I understand that this is not in fact the case. Certainly the chief of pediatrics doesn't believe it's the case.
[ Page 6315 ]
An ongoing concern out there is that we see these changes being made to the delivery of health care at all levels and people are feeling like they're not part of the process. I think this is the most important issue that the minister is going to have to deal with over the course of the next year. Obviously the Shaughnessy Hospital issue started it -- I shouldn't say that that decision started it, but from the doctors' perspective it followed on the heels of lack of consultation. Then we saw the Shaughnessy Hospital closure, where it was suggested by virtually everybody, even the workers within the health care field, that there was no consultation in making that decision.
This is yet another issue and a direction taken where the people who deliver the service feel that they haven't been adequately consulted. I reaffirm my view that a major thing for the minister in the next year will be to come up with some process so that everybody feels they've had adequate opportunity to give input into change.
Hon. E. Cull: The member raises a number of good points about consultation in general. I know he's not suggesting that I'm responsible for the consultative processes of hospitals as well as for what happens at the ministry level. I agree that some hospitals do an excellent job of the consultation process with their staff and communities, while others could probably make a lot of improvement and do a better job.
You say that over the next year one of my challenges as the minister will be to ensure that such a process does exist, because people don't feel like they're part of the process. That's exactly what the community health councils are all about: to provide a body in the community that has elected representation directly from the community, that is visible and that has the job of managing not just a part of the health care system but the spectrum of care in their community. I think that that in and of itself is going to go a long way to improve people's feelings of being connected to health care. I suspect that in most communities people don't know who is on their hospital board. They wouldn't know how to go about getting onto a hospital board if they wanted to do so, or know how to work to have somebody else get onto the board. It's a very confusing process. It's not deliberately secretive, but it is certainly not very visible to people in communities. I think the proposals that we're putting forward in terms of community health councils and regional health boards will go a long way to change that.
L. Fox: I only have a few more questions around the accord. In reviewing the minister's comments over the weekend, on several occasions through the estimates she makes reference to the fact that the accord would save HLRA money because it's less expensive than the old agreement and that the impact of the old agreement next year would be substantial because of the parity with the BCGEU that was in that agreement. That gave rise to a couple of questions.
Firstly, given that this contract was in place prior to the BCGEU settlement of last year, and given that that clause was there when the government negotiated with the BCGEU, was it aware when it gave the settlement to the BCGEU that it would have a negative impact on the HLRA's contract with the health care professionals?
Hon. E. Cull: Let me just provide again to the member the information from the HLRA's document. It indicates that without the accord the estimated increases over the three-year period that the accord will cover are: for BCNU, 14.10 percent; for HEU, 25.2 percent; and for HSA, 13.73 percent. With the accord -- and the 50 percent replacement that the HLRA has indicated would be adequate for the 36-hour work week -- the comparable costs for the three unions in the same order that I just read them are: BCNU, 10.25 percent; HEU, 14.57 percent; and HSA, 9.77 percent. In all cases the cost of the increase in the contracts over the term of the agreement is less with the accord.
The real stickler when it comes to the BCGEU is the hours, because the BCGEU have had a 35-hour work week for a very long time. I can't remember when that came in but it was certainly in the seventies, I believe, when the 35-hour work week was introduced for the BCGEU. The HEU has twice won a 35-hour work week through negotiations and arbitration only to have it reversed by the government of the day. So the big cost for parity with the BCGEU revolves around the hours that are worked. The fact is that on an hourly basis the BCGEU workers make a lot more because they work fewer hours in the week than the HEU people do. If that historical fact had been addressed the first time -- or even the second time -- that it was arbitrated and the HEU had won their 35-hour work week, the gap between the BCGEU and the HEU for doing comparable work would be much, much less than it is now. We wouldn't be faced with this situation.
For whatever reasons that were considered by the government of the day -- by your government at the time -- this right that was won through arbitration was taken back from them and the problem was passed on to 1993.
L. Fox: I believe, hon. Chair, that the minister is correct. In fact, the BCGEU 35-hour work week did go back to the seventies -- between '72 and '75, when the NDP was in power. Perhaps some of the rationale behind not accepting the recommendations to accept a 35-hour work week was not only philosophical but also based on the ability to pay.
When one looks at the document that was sent out to the Nurses' Union, one has to be a bit suspicious, because on page 7 it reads:
"Negotiation arose in response to an extraordinary circumstance, when it became clear that the provincial government intended to cut back funding to acute care hospitals, resulting in thousands of layoffs. None of the unions had an opportunity to prepare for negotiations with bargaining conferences or other normal procedures."
It clearly indicated to me that they're telling their membership that the Shaughnessy closure was something that was almost God's gift in terms of negotiating. They now had the autonomy to put the government in a very weak position, because the government needed the help of the unions to sell the
[ Page 6316 ]
closure of Shaughnessy. I don't fault them for that. That's great business sense. I certainly don't fault the union leadership for taking advantage of a bargaining chip that was handed to them because of a lack of consultation by the minister. If I were in that position, I would have done the same thing.
[3:00]
Look at the terms of the recommendation. The minister talked a few moments ago about not accepting the 35-hour work week -- whenever that was; years prior, anyway -- and leaving that delay until now. The first thing we see is that this is a signed agreement for three years, and there are many good things about that. It will certainly provide rest in both operations from a management perspective and a union perspective. Even more importantly, it will provide some comfort, especially in our long term care facilities. There's nothing more disruptive and heartbreaking than a strike, working-to-rule or whatever the particular unions choose to do in a long term care facility. The stress on those patients and on those people is phenomenal. There are some good points. A three-year agreement certainly would provide that kind of comfort.
I have two concerns with a three-year agreement under which you cannot lay off any individuals, where you must find them employment in another government office. One is that while we're going to decrease the number of employees involved in the delivery of our health care, we're not going to reduce the commitment to government. In fact, if we can't do it through attrition -- and the minister and I have talked about that before, and I don't want to get back into that -- we're going to guarantee them employment elsewhere. So it seems to me that there's a shift. It doesn't matter which pocket the money comes out of, it's still government funds. Perhaps the minister can assure me that we're not just going to be placing 4,000 employees from the health service into one of the other, I believe, 18 ministries and shifting those costs into other ministries.
Hon. E. Cull: I think the member can be quite assured that we're not going to be shifting it to the other 18 ministries. Indeed, many of these people have very specialized skills and training and will want to remain in health care, not be moved to a totally different area of career opportunities.
We are not looking at reducing the overall number of people who are employed in health care or reducing the overall health care services; we're looking at making a shift from acute care to the other parts of the system. So the 10 percent reduction isn't in all the health care employees -- there are about a 100,000 in the province; it is in the acute care sector.
We expect to see increases in the other parts of the health care sector, particularly the continuing care sector, as those people who are now in acute care beds who should be in multilevel, long term care beds make the move into appropriate care. With an aging population, as we are able to expand services to keep people at home -- through home support and home nursing -- we will have to add to the services and therefore the number of people providing those services in those areas.
While we have been in the estimates over the last two weeks, we have canvassed a number of areas members have brought to my attention where they think we need more service, not less service. For those areas in which we agreed -- and there were a number of areas where we agree that there is unmet need that has to be addressed -- we are looking at moving some of these talented people who now provide health care in hospitals to appropriate places outside of the acute care sector where we still need their skills.
L. Fox: I'll just wrap up, and I believe the Liberal Health critic wants to do the same. I'm not sure how many hours we've been at this particular process, but I know that over the course of the last three weeks we've been in and out of the House discussing the Health budget. Over the course of that time, I have always been very appreciative of minister's willingness to give us her points of view. While we haven't always agreed -- and I doubt that we ever would always agree -- I would have to say that she has a great amount of knowledge on the health care and the state of the health care in British Columbia.
The only thing I'm concerned about -- and I have yet to be convinced by the minister, even after these several weeks of discussion -- is that we really have a handle on the change from acute care to community care in all regions of this province. I look forward, over the course of the next year, to seeing some of those evaluations being done into the delivery and into those changes to see whether or not we are meeting the needs in the province to deliver a top-quality level of health care in a very financially efficient way.
Throughout the course of the debates the minister has failed to convince me that she had done sufficient costing or cost-benefit analyses regarding the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. It's very clear that many of those costs are not yet identified, although there are definitely some estimates in some areas. Through the course of the estimates, it is obvious that the minister and the ministry do not have all the answers with respect to the Shaughnessy closure. That bothers me. I'm not sure whether I support the closure, because I cannot get the information and haven't been able to.... The minister hasn't convinced me that she has the information and that she's making the best decision on behalf of all those people, including patients, workers, and the delivery of health care in Vancouver, and in the province as a whole.
While I certainly appreciate the process that we have gone through, and I appreciate the minister being here and being as up-front as she can be with questions I've put forward, I'm still not convinced that the minister has made all the right decisions on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
C. Tanner: Just one quick question. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister. I think her perseverance has borne fruit all the way through these negotiations or explanations, and I admire the way that she has stood up to the grilling she has gotten from this
[ Page 6317 ]
side of the House. I also, like the previous member, appreciate her forthrightness.
Last Friday the minister was talking about the situation in Victoria and said that she would get some more information before discussing it, which is quite proper. But I have another concern that I found out about over the weekend, and it is a situation that's building up in Victoria and, I suppose, in other hospitals -- but I know for a fact that it is in Victoria. We have as many as five ambulances waiting outside the door to deliver their patients to the hospital, to the emergency ward, and some of those ambulances sit there for as long as an hour and a half or two hours. It concerns me for the patients, but also it's very inefficient. So when the minister is looking at that situation, could she please also take that into consideration?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I will take that into consideration. I would hope that the regional coroner, who is now looking at the particular case at Royal Jubilee, will also be looking at the ambulance situation as it affected the death of that woman -- or as to whether it affected the death of that particular patient. Because the member hasn't been present throughout all of the estimates debate, although I'm sure he has been listening to it attentively, I will also point out that we have indicated the need to have a look at ambulance services and undertake some review to get at some of those concerns that have been raised in different communities.
Sometimes when that kind of comment is made, you dig into it and discover that there are all kinds of circumstances that lead to it happening, some of which could be managed much better in order to have a different result. In some cases it's administrative and management decisions were made that could be improved upon; in other cases it may indeed be the question of how resources have been distributed. I'm quite interested in having a look at how ambulance services are distributed around the province, to make sure that they are fair and equal and effective.
L. Reid: I too rise to make my concluding remarks on the health care estimates and debate over the last number of days.
My comment certainly stems from the fact that I don't believe we've developed any long-range plans for funding. In terms of the ability to seek information from this minister, the questions have been answered, but again the numbers have not been provided. I still have tremendous concern on the factuality of information that's been shared with the caucus, with the opposition and, frankly, with the people of British Columbia. We need to ensure that this becomes a debate where we always have at our disposal the numbers that we need to take a look at.
Certainly we have had many days of rhetorical comment about federal off-loading. That issue has been ongoing in this province for the last ten years. To somehow suggest that it is now a greater problem is simply not to recognize that it's been a huge problem for the last ten years. Certainly it was a huge problem when this government was in opposition. So I don't think you can comment that it's a new situation. It's the political reality in Canada today, and we need to recognize that. We can say it's callous; we can say it's unfair, but at the end of the day we need to recognize and build it into our cost accounting.
You will have heard me ask over the last number of days for a cost-benefit analysis for all the programs that this minister has introduced. That has not been forthcoming. We've had a debate, we've certainly discussed some issues, we've been very philosophical and free-ranging, and I appreciate the information that I received back. I would have appreciated all the more some cost-benefit analysis for the programs. To stand even today and suggest that there's a $5 million saving for a VGH and University Hospital merger and not have provided the documentation in the estimates process is, frankly, alarming to me.
We certainly have other issues on the go. We have issues in terms of a long-range plan to protect the resources. I don't believe there is anything that Canadians value more highly than their health care. I believe they are prepared to pay a reasonable sum of money for that service. They value it; they're prepared to fund it; they have to know if they're getting reasonable value for their dollars. Certainly we have talked a lot about evaluation and about where we wish to go. At the end of the day, the evaluation needs to come to the estimates process. We need to say: "We achieved success in this area as a result of X -- whatever it happens to be. We've talked a lot about evaluation. I trust, at some point, that that will be in place, but I can't be that trusting with the taxpayers' dollars -- to the tune of $6 billion -- when we're hoping that some of these plans may indeed make a difference. We're talking about urgent medical priority; I believe we have not addressed that overall. We have somehow looked at the shift to community care as the answer to the immediate problems we have today. There has never been a reasonable cost accounting for the shift to community care. This minister can't tell us what that is going to cost British Columbians. It does not allow for reasonable discussion of the estimates process. We get the response: "Trust us. Somehow this will return a better health product at the end of the day." I have difficulty with that. I would have felt reassured by seeing some kind of breakdown, some kind of cost-benefit analysis.
We had a discussion, over time, about the health care accord. The only comment I'll make is on the process of the HLRA. I believe it sets a precedent. I believe it sets some kind of approval for interventionist government. At the end of the day, if this government can stand, as they did today, and talk about collective bargaining having its place in British Columbia and say that it's absolutely fine for teachers, students and all the other labour groups in this province.... For them to go forward and not follow that same process in health care leaves much dissension in the ranks and much uncertainty.
[3:15]
The HLRA deal, as it stands today, is not a package that can be sold. The only opposition you heard me raise regarding this deal was in terms of the cost. Please
[ Page 6318 ]
tell us what it costs. We've had a free-ranging discussion with a number of different health care providers in the field. We have yet to arrive at two people giving us the same numbers. You have not heard the opposition say to scrap it; you have heard the opposition say: "Tell us what it costs." That information has still not been forthcoming. It was touted as a measure to buy long-term peace in the health care field. Hospital boards have a different view of how that peace can be achieved and maintained.
Has the sense of process from this particular agreement been a positive notion? I would submit that it has not. I believe that in a lot of cases it has created a tremendously poisonous atmosphere in terms of how hospitals and boards interact with the government and with business. When we receive limited value on cooperation -- I believe that's what this minister has done over time -- it's not valued cooperation. We have a whole litany of where this minister has come in the last 18 months. I believe we have damaged the cooperative enterprises in hospitals, because we have not looked at how best to ensure that any deal that's reached in the delivery of health care meets the needs across the board. We have isolated particular groups and treated them differently than others.
I come back to my point about process. In my estimation, this minister has not considered process to be a high priority. We have process after the fact, consultation after the fact, commissions and task forces -- all kinds of things that take a look once decisions have been reached. In the words of Ken Georgetti -- I know they have been raised in this House -- you don't begin consultation with a decision; you end consultation with a decision. That did not happen around a number of issues in the delivery of health care in this province.
If I may draw your attention to the B.C. Medical Association dispute. There was a lack of process; it was an opportunity for this minister to somehow suggest that they did not deserve the same framework discussion, the same process, as any other group in this province. My remarks this afternoon will centre solely on process. The lack of it has contributed to the problem and has not solved any issues for British Columbia health care providers or the individuals who receive health care in this province.
The minister will stand up in debate and tell us that this issue is about money. The issue is about process. The issue is about individuals in this province believing they can come and expect reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms from this government, not different dispute resolution mechanisms for different groups in society. We have to have some balance, and we have to ensure that everyone believes that they can access the same resources and treatment under the system. It hasn't happened.
I refer back to the money. If indeed the minister is going to make the case that this is only about dollars, the underutilization from last year's budget renders that argument null and void. It's no longer about dollars. It's about whether or not we can reach some kind of reasonable conclusion. I can only assume that the ideology is interfering with some sense of process, because otherwise this dispute would not have dragged on in excess of 12 months.
We are heading into our second year of uncertainty in health care as a result of this minister somehow believing that she can treat individuals in society differently. If you believe in process, if you believe in some kind of cooperative exercise -- which I believe is what government is all about -- then we should be there to facilitate reasonable decisions. We shouldn't be taking decisions for people. That is simply a patronizing view that has not allowed for great success in the past.
If we talk just about a dispute resolution mechanism, there are a number of groups in society that have been fast-tracked to some kind of resolution. Again, we have not seen reasonable access or reasonable process across the board. The thought, by different members of the government benches, that this high-handed approach to government is somehow justifiable hasn't warmed my heart, and I can frankly tell you that it hasn't impressed many people in this province. This is the 1990s; people want to participate in the process, and they want to believe that their comments are heard. They don't want to be told, after a decision has been made: "Thank you very much for raising that; now we'll strike a committee to look at the decision we've already reached. "That's the BCMA dispute and that's the Shaughnessy decision, both impacting countless thousands of British Columbians who are told that their opinion didn't matter until the decision was already reached and that then you will seek their counsel. It's not acceptable.
Quite honestly, I think it's beginning to touch on issues of credibility for this government. Government can do good work if they have the trust of the electorate. The trust of this electorate has, in my view, been badly damaged by the Minister of Health. I believe the issues around creating change in health care have been mismanaged. I believe we need to be ensuring that people are on board in the decision-making process. I would say this government has done more to lose people through the lack of process than any other government in history. The health care community is divided. We have tremendous uncertainty in health care providers and in individuals who receive health care. There is no communication in your ministry. Today we know that for a certainty. The individuals who demonstrated on the steps of the Legislature on Friday were here because no one bothered to communicate with them. That's absolutely unacceptable.
We have a lot of mystification surrounding the health care process. This minister spoke of open government, accessible health care and a better understanding of decisions. We have other hospitals that are designed for some type of role change in the coming years. I can only hope that in the discussions surrounding those changes the involvement of the individuals who directly receive and deliver the service will be sought. It hasn't been the case until now. It's been a heavy-handed approach, and it's certainly been unsettling for people who believed that their government put their health care first.
What about honesty? From Shaughnessy Hospital being considered too old and too unsafe to have any
[ Page 6319 ]
program operating in it, we've gone, today, to where we have Children's and Grace moving in to set up business. It's not appropriate, hon. minister, and I can assure you that is going on today. Again, if it's another example of miscommunication in your ministry, there's work to be done.
Much has been made in this debate about the ministry's New Directions program. We're asked to believe that this budget represents a 90-degree turn in health care in this province. But the New Directions program is big on overlay and short on substance. We have talked for many hours about how this change is somehow going to improve health care. Again, I come back to a cost-benefit analysis. There isn't one in place. The minister told us, many moons ago, that this was going to be reasonable health care delivered in a cost-efficient manner. We need to see that backed up. That has not happened. The estimates process does not validate the claim that this is bold, new thinking in health care.
I believe expectations have been created at the community level which simply cannot be met. We have told people to put their urgent health care priorities on hold so that 20 or 30 years from now we'll be a healthier society. It simply doesn't wash. It didn't work with the people here on Friday. It won't work with any of us -- our families or members of our communities and constituencies -- who need some kind of immediate intervention. They will not accept that their health care is not a priority for this government.
I draw the minister's attention particularly to the Seaton royal commission. The Seaton royal commission is a discussion document. It was never a blueprint in terms of being an implementation tool. It needed to be worked and reworked to be massaged into something workable in this province. But it hasn't happened. This ministry has advanced to all the communities that they're going to have decision-making power to bring the kind of health care they want to their communities, but not until 1996.
We can't have that level of health care -- urgent medical priority on every main street in every community in this province. I think we've tended to sow the seeds of chaos without ensuring that urgent medical priorities will be recognized in this province. I frankly believe it's a promise that cannot be delivered upon, and we won't even be evaluating it until the end of 1996. How many other people are going to fall through the cracks before we realize that a cost-benefit analysis was the first order of the day, not the last?
A cursory examination of the new authority structure at the community and regional level makes one thing clear: control is still in Victoria, but direction, vision and credibility are not.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, for your closing comments. Just to answer a question raised in committee a few minutes ago, our members might like to be advised that we have spent approximately 25 hours on Health estimates, give or take five. Hon. minister to close debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll try not to add too many extra minutes to that 25 hours.
I want to begin by thanking the third party critic for his very fair comments at the end of the debate. I don't expect to ever be able to persuade him to take on all of the opinions of the government or to accept our philosophy for health care, but I think that we entered into a very fair discussion that was quite useful and worthwhile.
I'm concerned with the opposition critic questioning the factualness of this debate. I know that she wasn't implying any deliberate attempt on my part to give dishonest figures or to mislead people in this House -- at least I certainly hope not -- because I have worked very hard in this estimates debate to give you the knowledge we have here in the ministry, and where we haven't had the information, to make it available as soon as possible after my staff were able to pull it together.
The member spent a lot of time talking about the fact that we haven't provided the cost or done the cost-benefit analysis. Well, the cost is clear: this year it's $6.2 billion, a 4 percent increase over last year. It's $100 million moved from the medical and hospital services portion of our budget into community-based services, to start to effect that shift to building a full continuum from acute care to community care. That's what it will cost.
In terms of effectiveness, the indications that the programs we're putting in place will be effective are the royal commission that was done here in this province, the six other royal commissions that were done across the country in the last decade and the Foulkes report that was done in British Columbia in the 1970s. Every one of these royal commissions has suggested the same emphasis on health care. The proof will be in the evaluation as we work through each implementation and report back on what we have done. Some of the evaluations will take some time -- for example, the hepatitis B program. We're not going to be able to tell in one or two years whether the estimated $5 million savings as a result of bringing in a universal program will be realized. We can estimate it now, but the real proof has to be as we work our way through it and report out at each successive estimates on the progress we're making.
The member also talked a lot about consultation, I agree that consultation is important, but it's not what we're here to do. Consultation isn't the end objective. The end objective is to provide better health for people in this province. We'll get there sometimes through consultation and sometimes through other means. But the bottom line of all this has to be: at the end of the day are people in this province any healthier as a result of what we're doing?
Any government that fails to consult, that has no consultation processes at all with the public or with stakeholders, deserves to be tossed out of office, because it would be arbitrary and insensitive. But on the other hand, a government that hides behind consultation and never makes a decision because everything's under review also deserves to be tossed out of office, for lacking the courage to make decisions
[ Page 6320 ]
that have to be made. There has to be a balance, and we have worked very hard to achieve that balance.
When we look at the effectiveness of what we have done in the last year and whether we have met some of the needs in this province, in a very short period of time -- 18 months -- we have guaranteed a woman's right to choose on abortion. We have expanded cancer services through the announcement of the Kelowna and Surrey cancer clinics and the expansion of the Victoria clinic. We've brought in the first universal hepatitis B vaccination program in North America. We have significantly reduced cardiac waiting lists; we have started to reduce radiation therapy waiting lists; and we have started work on surgical waiting lists. We have announced the legalization of a service that women in this province have been calling for for 13 years, and maybe much longer; it's at least 13 years that the association of midwives has been calling for the legalization of midwifery.
We have produced the first plan for the future of health care that this province has ever produced. It isn't a vague plan, or one put together in a hurry. As the member has pointed out, the royal commission was not a blueprint. This is the work that the blueprint will be built upon. We took the royal commission's recommendation and spent 13 months in extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public, trying to determine how to implement the very good ideas that the royal commission put in front of us. Right now across Canada there is tremendous pressure on health care. When you see the very difficult and painful decisions that other provinces are making with respect to their doctors, hospital closures and Pharmacare program, you have to look at what we're doing here in B.C.
[3:30]
I think the plan that we've put in place will allow us to avoid some of the dreadful decisions that are having to be made in other provinces because they were unable to plan ahead and got themselves right to the brink of the cliff before they started to turn the health care system around, and you can't turn it that quickly. We are committed to ensuring that medicare keeps pace with the changing needs of our population and that our health care system remains healthy, viable and affordable for future generations. That's the common goal. That's what we're all working towards, and that's what this government is going to achieve.
Vote 47 approved.
Vote 48: ministry operations, $6,082,547,600 -- approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 11.
FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe: This proposed legislation will improve the operations of the office of the fire commissioner and is in keeping with the overall initiative to modernize all statutes administered by my ministry, which is an exhaustive challenge as we move ahead to modernize the municipal acts and other statutes.
The mandate of the office of the fire commissioner is to reduce injuries, loss of life and property damage resulting from fire. This legislation clarifies and strengthens the authority of the fire commissioner to appoint local assistants to carry out the commissioner's responsibility in communities throughout the province: for example, inspecting buildings and investigating fires. This step is a key element in the improvement of the fire commission as a system of inspection, investigation and reporting. It will also make the method of fire reporting far more efficient by, for example, permitting the electronic transmission of reports for greater efficiency and improved communication and response.
British Columbians expect the office of the fire commissioner to ensure that our homes, offices and institutions are as safe as possible from the threat of fire. This legislation will strengthen the ability of the fire commissioner to meet the expectation of our citizens.
A. Cowie: We are supportive of this bill. We're supportive of streamlining the bureaucracy and anything to improve the efficiency of government. We really have no objection to this bill at all.
We would like to make one brief comment, however. We have some concern about taking fees out of the Legislature. There was a minor fee requirement previously for xeroxing documents and things, but it is a minor item. We are in support of this.
The Speaker: The minister, in rising, closes debate on second reading.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion approved.
Bill 11, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 12.
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is a pleasure to put forward the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993. This proposed legislation contains -- and I sometimes hesitate to use this term -- housekeeping provisions designed to meet some
[ Page 6321 ]
specific needs in the communities of Sidney, the Regional District of Nanaimo, Invermere, the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam and Burnaby. Three of these communities need this legislation because they did not fully meet some of the procedural requirements of the municipal acts. I know that my hon. colleague and critic has indicated some concerns, and I suspect that he will bring those up during committee.
For Sidney this legislation will validate leases, licences and agreements relating to the Sidney port development. Without this legislation, the Sidney port development and the positive impact of that revitalization project could be adversely affected.
For the Regional District of Nanaimo this legislation will validate the agreement transferring Beban Park to the city of Nanaimo, which will ensure that the city of Nanaimo can take over the operation of this public park for the people of that community.
For Invermere this legislation will validate a 1981 industrial development agreement and loan between the province and Invermere. This will clear the way for the district to repay their loan to the province in the prescribed way.
The Regional District of Fraser-Cheam needs this legislation to take on a new challenge. It will allow the regional district to enter into an agreement with the federal government and take ownership of the airport at Hope. Transport Canada now wishes to transfer ownership of the airport to the regional district, which has already been operating it for a number of years. Transport Canada wants the regional district to grant them the option to repurchase the airport. This legislation will permit the granting of such an option, which currently the Municipal Act does not allow for. We can discuss that in committee, if the opposition so wishes.
Finally, this legislation will also enable Burnaby to provide some health and social services outside its boundaries. As you know, hon. Speaker, local governments cannot provide services outside their boundaries, but here is an instance where it makes good sense to allow them to do so. Specifically, they will be allowed to provide services to Jericho Hill students temporarily living in Vancouver. In general, the authority of municipal councils under the Municipal Act is limited to take actions within their boundaries.
This legislation is needed only for a limited purpose and will not represent a precedent. The students receiving the services will be the residents of Burnaby in 1994. The legislation will ensure that all students in the Jericho Hill program have access to appropriate health and counselling services.
This legislation will meet the pressing needs of five local communities in British Columbia. If required, we can go over some of the details in committee.
A. Cowie: Since this bill is dealing with a fait accompli situation, there is really no point in arguing or debating it. We have some concern that things happen, and then we bring the legality of these happenings. I trust that this is just something that occasionally happens in government and isn't a regular practice.
On the issue of Hope, that seems a little unusual. Although it appears straightforward, we can't help but wonder if there isn't something behind the scenes. However, we will wait until third reading before we look at that in more depth.
That's all I really want to say about this bill. I encourage that we go ahead. However, the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands would like to make a short statement.
C. Tanner: I congratulate the government on bringing forward this legislation to correct problems that appeared in the negotiations in the town of Sidney over a number of years, and I want to take this occasion to tell you about the consequences of those mistakes. We now have a development in Sidney which is so successful that virtually everybody in Victoria spends all their time in Sidney because of the quality of the establishment of that new marina. In fact, it's getting better by the week, because it's expanding even further.
I would again thank the government for bringing this legislation forth. I am sure that the town of Sidney will not have occasion to do this again.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll close debate with just a general comment. I will get into some specifics of the bill, as my hon. critic for Vancouver-Quilchena has suggested, but I would just like the members to know that the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act has been in existence since 1958. Sometimes it is required when local government does make a slip, or they don't cross their t's or dot their i's, or there's a court challenge, or something happens that makes the impact on local government dramatic, particularly on taxpayers. I can assure you, hon. members, that we go through these issues quite carefully in committee, but obviously there are times when local government needs enabling legislation to allow them to make decisions efficiently and quickly. What's before you today does that, all requested by local government.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.
Motion approved.
Bill 12, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.
SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. A. Hagen: Bill 19 makes a number of amendments to the School Act, some of a miscellaneous and housekeeping nature, and others of a more substantive nature. Because of the characteristics of this particular bill, what I propose to do in second reading is to outline briefly the contents of the legislation. However, I believe it is the kind of legislation that lends
[ Page 6322 ]
itself best to discussion in committee, because, as we say, there are no themes throughout this particular bill that allow us to address it as a principles bill, if you like. I think that will mean that with the support of all members of the House, we will be able to address those issues most effectively as we work our way through the various amendments.
[3:45]
However, having said that, let me turn to the first amendments, which are changes to the preamble to the School Act. This amending bill brings to us a new general preamble to the School Act, which we believe more fully reflects our education principles and goals. The preamble includes a new clause which deals with society's goals for education. I think it's a view that all of us hold that the family, the school, the community and society all share in responsibility for the education of our children. The new clause speaks very specifically to our support of education, with self-reliance and democratic citizenship being two of the most fundamental underpinnings of the goals of education. So we are speaking here about society's goal to ensure that all citizens have an education that enables them to be personally fulfilled and publicly useful, thereby increasing the strength and contributing to the health and stability of that society. We're speaking, then, of society's role in and goals for education.
The second part of the preamble is one that has been there since the School Act was first introduced in 1989, but it adds two or three significant words that I believe, again, more fully reflect our province's educational principles and goals. First of all, it speaks to the education of all learners. As we know, one of the attributes of our education system is that it is an inclusive system: all learners, regardless of their places of living in the province, their economic circumstances and their physical and intellectual capacities, will have the opportunity to reach their potential. So the addition of that word "all" is intended to reflect the inclusive nature of our education system. We have also added the words to the clause that speaks about learners acquiring "knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy" -- and the new words -- "democratic and pluralistic society," and then continuing with words that have existed, "a prosperous and a sustainable economy" -- again, the importance of young people acquiring knowledge skills and attitudes for citizenship and a recognition of the diversity of our province. It's a diversity that has been its characteristic since its earliest days, and which is, even as we speak, changing in its configuration and in the richness of the many people who have chosen to live in our province or, as with our aboriginal peoples, who continue to be an essential part of the nature and makeup of our society.
We have added some new definitions to these amendments. One of them relate to "guardian," which will now be defined to be in keeping with the term in the Family Relations Act, so that when we speak of guardians in the School Act legislation it will be consistent with B.C. law. Also in the definitions, "day of instruction" is defined to clarify and set out in law what constitutes a day of instruction for students and to tie it to the provision of an educational program.
One of the amendments deals with policy and now laws that relate to copies of student records. As we have reviewed over the past year the practices of school districts, we have found that there is no uniform policy concerning a parent's or student's entitlement to receive a copy of their student record. Therefore, to create a consistent entitlement across the province, it is proposed to state expressly in the legislation that parents and students are entitled to receive a copy of the student record upon request.
There is an amendment which deals with putting into statute a practice regarding the powers to suspend students. To clarify our legislation respecting suspension of students, and as a result of a recent court ruling, it is proposed to expressly provide administrative officers and superintendents with the authority to suspend students in accordance with board policies. The courts have ruled that such suspensions may only be imposed by the board. However, board meetings may not be scheduled within a time frame that would allow for the prompt action that might be required for the protection of students and school personnel.
An important amendment relates to the school calendar. This amendment comes as a result of recommendations made to me from a policy review process which involved representatives from each of the education partners. Their recommendations and policy decisions of cabinet have led to legislative change in these amendments. They will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set a standard school calendar for a period of five years in order to bring predictability and stability to an area that has been, without question, marked with confusion and abuse since the legislation was introduced by the last government in 1989.
What the amendments will do is set out the opening and closing days of school, the number of days that schools are to be in session, the minimum number of days and hours of instruction that must be offered to students, the maximum number of available non-instructional days and the holidays and vacation periods in each school year.
These amendments also take into account the desire of some school boards to adjust their school year according to local needs and conditions. So the legislation will provide school boards with the ability to adopt, in accordance with regulations, local school calendars which may vary from the standard school calendar for one or more of the schools in that school district. At the same time the regulations will ensure that minimum standards of instructional time are maintained and that appropriate parental, board and employee approvals are obtained before a school district calendar, or a local school calendar, is adopted by the board. These amendments also ensure that school boards remain accountable and responsible for determining the length of school days, the minutes of school operations and the number and length of breaks within the school day.
The next amendment that I'm going to refer to is very much a technical amendment. What it does is clarify and put into one statute all the various provisions currently contained in a number of statutes
[ Page 6323 ]
respecting the taxation of school property. It will also include a definition of property that is consistent with the definition in the assessment act.
The next two amendments deal with capital projects. The first one is again technical. In order to be consistent with the government's interest in ensuring school board accountability for capital expenditures, an amendment is included that will clarify the minister's power to issue tendering orders that are binding upon school boards so that a practice now in place will be given legislative authority.
I spoke earlier about the next amendment, which has to do with capital planning. As we look at the growth of many districts, we recognize that planning for schools is an increasingly important part of not only education planning but of community planning as well. I think it's fair to say that in the rapid growth we've experienced in many areas of the province, problems have arisen concerning the coordination of planning for school facilities by school boards and the planning for new land developments by local governments. School boards may be and often are informed of a new housing project or changes to existing plans too late to adequately plan for the required school facilities.
The proposed amendment would create a formal linkage between school boards and local governments requiring consultation during the planning process so that school boards can plan school facilities in advance of new developments and integrate school facilities into the community.
I might note, hon. Speaker, that in the preparations for this amendment, we have enjoyed a close and productive working relationship with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. I think that cooperation will be very helpful as we move ahead with implementing this practice.
The other amendments are largely of a technical and housekeeping nature. They deal with such matters as ensuring that the prescribed school calendar applies to all collective agreements, including those agreed to before this amendment becomes law; changing of the wording of the section dealing with the disclosure of student records; clarifying that the requirement for parental consent to disclose student record applies only to parents whose children are of school age.
As we move through the specifics of these amendments, I know that hon. members of the Legislature will examine the intent and structure of the amendments in more detail. Thank you, hon. Speaker.
J. Dalton: I thank the minister for her very good overview of a statute that certainly we in the opposition are not going to oppose in principle. It is, as the minister explained, a statute that I might describe as bits and pieces of things that are appropriately being brought in to bring the School Act up to date.
I will make two or three remarks not on specific provisions in the act -- those, of course, will come at the committee stage -- but on things of a more generic nature that I think should go on record now. When we go clause by clause we can deal with the specifics.
One thing that I think is well documented in the press and in the public is, unfortunately, some adverse reaction to the Year 2000. I would just comment that the preamble has been changed, as the minister commented, to reflect, perhaps not intentionally but indirectly -- some of the concerns that people have expressed. The point I'm referring to is that there's an emphasis in the new clause in the preamble which enables students to become personally fulfilled and publicly useful. Those are very laudable goals, and I don't quarrel with those. I'm sure that no one in this House would, but I hope that we never lose track of the fact that our schools must prepare our students academically and otherwise through the educational process.
Social development and becoming good citizens is naturally and almost automatically part of that process. I'm just worried that we are shifting away from what I would still hope is the prime emphasis of schooling and education: to ensure that our students -- at whatever age and whatever process they are going through in the educational stage -- are ensured of a first-rate, quality education, and the side effects of societal and personal development will certainly be important. I fear that we may be placing too much emphasis on things that school has a mandate to do but things that are not its prime mandate. That's just a passing comment on the preamble.
[4:00]
I am pleased -- as I'm sure that everyone in this House is -- to see some reference and amendments to the standard school calendar. When we go through committee stage we will be able to make some remarks and ask some particular questions on that.
There's no question that the regulation 8 controversy -- things like the length of the school year and the length of the school day -- have caused some sparks to fly. I suppose it's fair comment to say that these days, any time you get into a discussion on education, whether it be in this House or elsewhere, there are going to be sparks. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere we are in. However, that's not the purpose of this bill. I only say that because any time we look at amendments to the School Act and look at educational philosophy, the direction education is going, there will be critics. There are going to be people who say: "Wait a minute; that's no good enough. Perhaps we need to take it in this direction."
Coming back to the provisions of amending the regulations dealing with the school calendar, at least people will be happy to see that the sidelines of the playing field have been outlined. To this point, it was very unclear where that playing field was or where you would be stepping out of bounds and had left the field of play. That's certainly a laudable provision.
I had some worry about a reference in the amendment that all existing agreements are going to have to comply with the provisions of the legislation. It is probably appropriate but might also cause some controversy. Some collective agreements may be brought into question because of this provision. At least that will achieve consistency throughout the school calendar for all collective agreements. So we'll have to see whether any controversy will come out of that.
[ Page 6324 ]
The other amendments and the things that the minister commented on are truly -- at least for the most part -- things which are pertaining to other statutes, such as the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act. When we go to committee stage we may wish to raise some questions on that.
I have one final comment dealing with the jurisdiction of the minister. We will probably get to more specific comments on section 9 in Bill 19, for example, dealing with the non-instructional periods of time. Again, some people have been critical of the non-instructional periods and the length of time that students, in the strict sense, are not in the classroom. So I'm hoping we'll be able to tidy up any uncertainties in that regard. With those few comments, I am going to conclude my remarks and indicate that certainly members of the official opposition will be supportive of this bill, in principle, on second reading.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principle of this bill. It's unfortunate that our critic is tied up in estimates in the other room. I don't believe he was aware that this was going to come forward at this point. But I'll do my best to represent the interests of free enterprise in this discussion.
When I look at this bill, it appears that, yes, there are elements of housekeeping in it. But philosophy is also very evident. First, I look at the fact that a parent can now go in and demand a copy of the student's records, provided they have the money to pay the photocopying fee. I look at that and think back to the changes to the Infants Act, which allow an individual as young as twelve years to go to a medical practitioner and undergo surgery without their parent having to be consulted. This particular initiative does just the opposite to what the Infants Act amendment did. I have to wonder: where is this government's consistency?
I've had three children go through the educational system, and I've never had a difficult time going in and asking to see my son's or daughter's record. In fact, there are usually three nights a year in which parents are invited to discuss those records. So I'm not sure why that change was required. Perhaps I'll take the minister at her suggestion of some inconsistency throughout the province. That may in fact be.
I note that the bill understands the value of the number of school days in a year. It understands the value of how much instructional time is given to a student in a year and how important it is to the student that that stays consistent. I wish this government had used the same thought and rationality when they removed education as an essential service. If in putting this bill forward the minister is suggesting that it's so important to have that many days a year and that many hours a day, why did this government allow education to be removed as an essential service, to the point that we now see many students throughout the province not getting the benefit of those days and hours of instruction? That disturbs me. It concerns me that no consistent message is coming from this government.
This legislation is going to put more controls on the local school boards. There's going to be more control over the tendering process. It requires school boards to make a public resolution endorsing a particular plan before it comes to Victoria. The only thing I can suggest that's going to happen, given that and a couple other items in the bill, is that we're going to see a mechanism, similar to what I discussed with the minister during estimates, that allows the local school boards to extract land on subdivision. Obviously, if they can discuss a capital project in a public process before it comes to Victoria and gets approval, then there's going to be.... If some process like that is not in place, there's going to be even more speculation by the public than there is today. That's a concern on both sides.
I can see that the ministry is heading into the direction of developing a policy very similar to what's allowed under the Municipal Act -- perhaps that's why we see so many thrusts towards the Municipal Act -- where they can expropriate, on subdivision, a portion of land like the municipalities presently have available to them, which will drive land prices higher. That wouldn't be as alarming if we weren't taxing for school purposes based on assessments, but as we extract these lands at subdivision time, the cost of the lots created during that subdivision will increase, compared to the 10 percent that will be lost at subdivision to either recreation parks or in the process of developing a bank for education.
I well recognize the need for planning and identifying school sites prior to growth. I also understand the difficulty of identifying school populations in any area in advance of the development of that area. I think part of the rationale of the ministry over the years has been to see the whites of their eyes before we build a school, because it's often very difficult to predict how many children are going to end up in a development area. I recognize the need for a discussion between the respective municipality and the school board, but I am concerned. I look forward to the committee stage to explore those areas of concern.
When we look at how this particular bill reaches in and grabs some of the autonomy from school boards, we have to wonder where this ministry and this government are going with respect to local autonomy for school boards. It's an area that I'm sure there will be much debate over. I guess I'm concerned about that undercurrent and the philosophical approach. Having only the amendments before me, I'm not able to put it into perspective. I'm really concerned that there's more to this bill than we see on its surface, and I look forward to discussing it at the third reading stage. I firmly believe I'm going to end up voting against this bill at second reading because of the philosophies and principles that I believe are in the bill.
J. Pement: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pement: It's my pleasure today to introduce to you, from the beautiful community of Hazelton, 14 students from the Hazelton Seventh Day Adventist junior academy and their teacher Cindy Walper. Would you please bid them welcome to the House today.
[ Page 6325 ]
H. De Jong: I'm not going to speak very long on this bill, because I think my colleague here has said most of the things that were on my mind as well. However, I want to talk a little bit about the planning for school grounds and future school sites. I'm not sure whether some communities have neglected in the past to have a good consultative process between the local council and the school boards. Certainly in my own community, where I've been alderman and mayor for quite some time, we would have meetings about twice a year with the local school board to determine the future and the growth of the community. If possible, and in fact in many instances, land was bought by the municipality for potential school sites long before development ever came to those areas. I recall that one particular property that we as a municipality bought was a whole 40-acre farm. Now there is a nice new high school there, because the community has grown into that area. And that's not the only one.
But I do feel that perhaps some incentives should be given to local communities so that they can purchase land ahead of development. But to have it done, as I fear, as a part of development, and putting up land as a share of the development, you might say -- as a share of the acreages that are to be developed -- will, I think, only drive the price of houses that much higher. After all, there is only so much money to come out of those lands, and if the demands of park allotments, school allotments, road allotments and who knows what all have to come out of that development, then we're on the wrong track in terms of providing affordable housing. There is a lot at stake in that area.
[4:15]
I've also some concerns about the earlier parts of the bill, where I believe that some autonomy is going to be lost for school boards. There are situations -- and we see it happening right now in many communities throughout the province -- where perhaps we may have a set number of hours for schools, but these are going to be lost. I think my colleague here has pointed out that if there was a mechanism to have education declared an essential service -- and I believe it is.... I don't think anyone can argue the point that the education of children isn't essential. It's very essential. To have these strikes and lockouts drag on and drag on.... We can have all the directions and the stipulations within those bills -- and within this bill in particular -- but it will not happen.
I do have concern about this bill, and I'm not prepared to vote for second reading until.... Perhaps during third reading we will get more clarification from the minister, and we can see more eye to eye. But on the face of it, I cannot support this bill.
The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate on second reading.
Hon. A. Hagen: I want to make just one or two comments in closing debate on second reading. I appreciate the views that have come from hon. members as they have looked at this amending bill.
I think it is very important, in closing second reading, to emphasize three things. First of all, our commitment in the School Act is to have a piece of legislation that provides standards, predictability and stability for the tremendous value that society places on education for our children. So, whether we are dealing with the preamble to the School Act, the issue of government making clear what our standards are for the school calendar or good planning for schools in the future, I want to emphasize that these amendments have been brought forward with that overarching goal in mind. As communities plan their futures, equally important to the planning that we have for parks and other amenities, surely schools should be at the heart of that planning. Amendments to that effect are a part of this legislation.
Secondly, I think it is important to emphasize as well that in these amendments we are making up for past omissions and, sometimes, commissions. There was, for example, the failure to look at the implications of legislation around the school calendar and to not plan how that could be introduced in ways that would produce a standard, with stability and predictability.
Thirdly, I want to address the issue of autonomy. It is an important issue and it's one that I think requires a balance. We as members of this Legislature have a responsibility to set standards that mean there is predictability for all students, while allowing for local initiative. In the school calendar provisions we have, I believe, achieved that kind of balance between a standard for all students and the option and opportunity for local school communities to set, within those minimum standards, a different calendar or a calendar that adds to the basic standards available to all students.
We have within these amendments some very fundamental principles in support of our students, society's commitments to students, standards for all students, and stability and predictability.
With that, hon. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Moving right along, I call second reading of Bill 20.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's my pleasure at this time to introduce second reading of the Independent School Amendment Act, 1993, which, like the previous bill that we have been considering, makes a number of changes to the Independent School Act.
Again, it's my proposal to briefly outline the nature of these amendments with the recognition that we will be debating them in committee. The preamble for the Independent School Act will be amended to be consonant with the preamble for the School Act. So the
[ Page 6326 ]
comments that I've made earlier apply to this bill as well. There are some changes in definition and, in particular, I'd like to refer to the definition of "guardian." There is an amendment proposed to provide a clear definition of guardian for funding purposes. We do use the word guardian in the current act, but it is not defined. The proposed definition will be consistent with the meaning of guardian in the Family Relations Act, which establishes that a guardian must be recognized as such by the courts under British Columbia law. The province presently provides funding to each student whose parent or guardian is resident in British Columbia and lawfully admitted to Canada. Immigration Canada has a broad working definition of guardian which differs from our province's definition of guardian. Certain independent schools believe that based on Immigration Canada's definition and requirements, foreign students should qualify for funding under the act. By defining guardian according to B.C. law, the ministry's current practice is put into law and the province continues to be able to determine who is an eligible student.
A second amendment deals with issuing an interim certificate of group classification. All independent schools in the province, whether they are funded or not, are required to hold a valid certificate of group classification to operate. This certificate requires schools to meet the basic criteria as specified in the act, including enrolment of not less than ten students. In order to enable a new school with no students to begin operations, a new section of the act is proposed which permits the inspector of independent schools to issue an interim certificate of group 3 and 4 classification in accordance with the requirements set out in the schedule to the act. I would note that groups 3 and 4 students in this amended bill will be students in schools that come under independent school regulations but are not funded by the province.
Another amendment deals with temporary enrolment drops below ten school-aged students. The act presently requires a minimum enrolment of students for a school to maintain its group classification. This has created two distinct problems for smaller, independent schools, where unexpected drops in enrolment occur because one or two families may move from the area. If it occurs during the school year, legally the school should be closed. Such an event could seriously disrupt the schooling of the remaining students. Secondly, if the loss of students occurs during the summer months, the school should also legally be closed even though the school has contracted to provide a teacher for the school year. In addition, should this occur to a funded group 1 or group 2 school, the school could lose its funding for at least two years. To address this issue, an amendment to the schedule to the act is proposed which will permit a certificate of group classification to be issued or renewed for group 1 and group 2 independent schools whose enrolment has temporarily dropped below ten school-aged students. Functionally this amendment will give the school a period of one year to raise its enrolment. This will deal with some issues that have come forward over the last few years.
A further amendment deals with materials and services entitlements for independent school authorities. Previously these entitlements were detailed in the budget documents. A new section is now proposed which clarifies the authority of the minister to determine the materials and services an independent school authority is entitled to receive and purchase. Also, the minister may differentiate between which independent school group classification will have materials and services made available to them.
An amendment dealing with grants that may be paid to independent school authorities relates to past practice, which provides grants periodically only to group 1 and group 2 independent schools for such purposes as student and teacher exchanges, computer development, Pacific Rim projects and special education. These entitlements were also previously detailed in the budget documents. In this bill, two new sections are proposed so that regulations may determine any factor, including the group classification and geographic location of an independent school, to determine the grants to be paid to different independent schools.
There is an amendment relating to group 4 schools, permitting them to issue the British Columbia graduation certificate, known as the Dogwood certificate. Currently only groups 1 and 2 independent schools may issue their students a provincial graduation certificate. The proposed amendments would permit a group 4 independent school to issue a B.C. graduation certificate, the Dogwood certificate, if all teachers at the school are certified. This would equal the curriculum and teacher certification requirements of group 1 and 2 schools and would permit the inspector to set conditions respecting the issue of graduation certificates by different authorities, based on their group classification.
The final amendment I want to speak to is the elimination of the current group 3 classification. This amendment provides for the elimination of funding for group 3 independent schools. Group 3 independent schools currently receive from the province 10 percent of the per student operating costs of the local public school district in which they are situated. However, they are not subject to any curricula or certification requirements under the act. As there are no provincial standards with respect to curricula and teacher certification for group 3 schools, the expenditure of public funds is inappropriate. It was therefore concluded that funding of group 3 schools should be discontinued, and under these amendments, the current group 3 schools will be joined with the group 5 schools to form a new unfunded group 3 classification.
As one might note from the nature of these amendments, the substance of them can be more appropriately debated through our committee process, and I look forward to that discussion.
[4:30]
J. Dalton: This is not dissimilar, in some sense, to the last bill we dealt with in second reading. Some items are not contentious. But certainly the official opposition
[ Page 6327 ]
is not going to be able to support this bill in its current form because of the elimination of the group 3 funding.
I would have to say, on behalf of the independent schools federation and all independent schools, that there's a feeling of betrayal out there. When this government ran in the last election, it was certainly on record that it was supportive of the funding of independent schools in place then, and up until 1993-94. As this House is aware, there were three categories of funding, groups 1, 2 and 3. If this legislation passes, that will change. Group 1 will be maintained at 50 percent funding, and group 2 will maintain its 35 percent status. But unfortunately group 3 has been eliminated, and that was at 10 percent funding.
I want to make it quite clear that even though many aspects of this bill.... I've had an opportunity to go through it with officials from the independent schools federation. They have no problem with most of the other housekeeping aspects of this bill, so to speak. But they are certainly troubled -- and this is the criticism I'm directing right now -- about the elimination of that group 3 funding.
For example, they cannot see why, if you were going to bring an amendment forward, it would not have been permitted to introduce accountability into the funding of the group 3 category. But the government has chosen not to do that. Perhaps at the committee stage we can get into some clause by clause discussion as to why that was not so. Of course, I do not have the opportunity to question the minister now as to why some other provision, other than the outright elimination of the funding, was not implemented. That's something we're going to have to leave to another stage. It's certainly something that has to go on record. It is unfortunate that this funding was eliminated, because where does it end?
If we open the door and eliminate funding in one category, who is to say that the government -- given that budgets are tight and they keep telling us they have no more money for education; and if I may also make reference, as I did in the last bill, the fact that these days we see the evidence of a lack of funding and underfunding -- won't continue to wedge it further and further open and we will see the day when independent school funding may be eliminated altogether through the current government's approach to school funding in general? I think that would be unfortunate. I want to speak on behalf of the education system in general, but specifically when we're dealing with this bill, of the importance of the independent school movement.
I think everyone recognizes that there are many independent schools of varying categories in this province, all of which have a particular mandate to fill. There are certainly many people in this province who wish the opportunity for choice. I am submitting that the choice should be maintained, and the funding should be maintained to give some assurance to parents and students who wish alternative methods of education -- or at least opportunities to examine alternative methods -- that those methods will remain in place. Some people may argue: "Well 10 percent, so what?" But that is a significant factor, and I don't think it's the percentage that we're debating here; more importantly, I think it's the concept. The official opposition and I are troubled and will have to speak against this bill from the point of view of the deprivation of the group 3 classification of funding.
There are other aspects of this bill that we will address as we go through committee stage clause by clause, so I will not get into detail on those aspects at this time. I wish to voice the concern of the official opposition on that particular element, because I think that's truly the highlight of this bill; that's the thing that leaps off the page when you go through this provision. But we will wait until committee stage, when we can get into more of the detail that is brought out.
Those are the points that I wish to flag and the criticism that I have to voice on behalf of the independent school movement about the elimination of group 3 funding.
K. Jones: It is a sad day in this House when we have to speak against bills relating to education and when the Ministry of Education brings forward bills that are going to take away the very minimal funding received by the people who send their children to independent schools. I think it's a terrible situation when the Ministry of Education and the thinking of the NDP says that independent schools don't contribute a major part to our society.
The ability of the independent school to offer something different from the public school system, something more in keeping with what the parents and the children desire for their education -- still based on a fundamental curriculum and meeting the needs of the children -- is something that we in British Columbia cherish as a right and as a true choice -- not being stuck with the one position of taking the government-run school system and then saying that that's what we've got to have. We have a history in British Columbia of having some of the finest independent schools in the country. They have been developed through hard work and the raising of special funds, because they do not get capital funding from the provincial government, even though the parents pay the taxes for the public school system's capital programs and for their operating programs. The parents also pick up the operating costs in the case of the group 3 classification, which up until now has been receiving only 10 percent of the operating costs. Now this minister wants to eliminate even that 10 percent. The parents have been contributing 90 percent of those costs for the education of their children. That has to amount to double taxation. I think that the parents and the children who wish to have an alternative should also have an alternative for where their tax money is going to go. They should be able to designate, by a voucher system or by some other method, where their education tax dollar is going so that it is fair and equitable to those people who choose to give their children specialized training and a specialized opportunity over and above the basic curriculum.
That has to be what our democracy is about. People have come to this country for the right to have a choice,
[ Page 6328 ]
the right to hear an independent voice, not a collective one stating that everybody has to be the same. That's really what this type of movement is leading to. I know that the direction of this government is to collectivize and to make sure that everybody is equal, regardless of their abilities or skills or desires. It's a matter of trying to make everybody fall into the same little pigeonhole, and it's not what these people are after. It's not what most people in British Columbia are after. They have real needs and concerns and the public school system isn't addressing those needs and concerns. Therefore they want an opportunity to provide an alternative. They shouldn't have to pay extra for that opportunity. The school system in British Columbia is not capable of handling the students that are already being looked after in the independent school system. If the independent school system were to stop taking students today, our school districts would be in chaos. They provide a viable alternative to the present operations of the school systems, they are good contributors to our society and I think that's it about time the minister, instead of going directly against the Premier's campaign promise that there would be no cutback in independent school funding.... Once again, another promise broken.
Hon. T. Perry: What?
K. Jones: Yes, what. The minister is so surprised that another promise is broken. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise with the number that have been broken. I think just about every one is broken now, isn't it?
Hon. T. Perry: You sound like a broken record. That's the only thing that's broken around here.
K. Jones: Well, we'll see how you make out with your ministry and whether you survive in your ministry.
We have in this bill something that is a true indication of the direction of this government. It is going, as usual, in the wrong direction. It is out of touch with the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia are asking for choice; the people of British Columbia are asking for an ability to have an individual way of life that allows our children to grow to their greatest potential and not be stuck in a system that rigidly controls and limits them and doesn't recognize some special circumstance or desire of the parent or the child. It is because of that desire that I stand to oppose this bill, particularly the sections that take away the funding for level 3. Who knows where the next cut will be? Level 2 provides Ministry of Education funding to the tune of only 35 percent of the cost; the parents are still picking up the remainder. Only 50 percent of a level 1 schooling program's operating costs are paid by the government; the other 50 percent, and all of the capital costs, are paid by the parents. In addition, like everybody else, they pay their full share of the public school system, to which they do not send a child; they just make the contribution. It's double taxation; it's unfair taxation.
I think this government should be ashamed to bring this type of proposal forward. They should be bringing forward an expansion of government's contribution to the independent schools. They have a right to equal education. They shouldn't be treated as unequal in our province and billed more. I think the government must have the concept that people who have children at independent schools are the rich. They are people from all walks of life. A few of them are rich; a large number of them are just ordinary middle-income people like you and me; and there are people who don't have the incomes that you and I have. They all share the costs to allow their children to have a better type of education than the public school system will provide for them.
[4:45]
I'm particularly concerned with the sections of this bill that.... I'm trying to get an idea of the intent of the ministry with regard to sections that change the requirements for interim certificate for groups 3 and 4 classifications. I think there's something hidden in there, some desire to change the process so that people are not fairly treated. Another roadblock is being placed in the way of people who wish to be outside the public school system because it better serves their needs. This system, this government and this proposal are going in the wrong direction. They do not represent what the people of B.C. want. The people whose children have been in the public school system, as well as those who presently have children in the public school system and those who may in future have children in the public school system, also recognize that there is inequity in the process and in the operation of independent schools.
Independent schools have to be treated fairly. They need to have the same level of cost for the parents on behalf of their children as for any other citizen in British Columbia. Therefore I have to say this bill is draconian, it is backwards and it should be defeated.
L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 20. This is something which is actually quite easy to speak to. There is no question that there is a hidden agenda here somewhere. When we look at the removal of funding for class 3 schools, and examine just how many students that involves.... In 1992 there were 37 schools which involved 1,360 students. Collectively, the province contributed $760,000 as 10 percent of the block. In the public system, those same 1,360 students would have cost British Columbia $7,600,000.
If we as a government want to make sure that we give a good solid foundation to our children and that the children achieve an accreditable education which allows them to move on to bigger and better things, perhaps some examination of the programs they are in fact being given and some evaluation as to the level of education they are receiving would be in order.
Why would this government attack an independent system which educates the children for 10 percent of what it costs the province of British Columbia to educate that same number of people? It isn't hard to understand where the government is coming from. You only have to look back at some of the statements made by NDP members over the course of the last five or six
[ Page 6329 ]
years. The member for Nanaimo was quoted in the Times-Colonist on June 25, 1987, calling the private system "bastions of privilege." That is exactly what the NDP government feels that the private system is. They feel that it is somehow an elite group of individuals with all kinds of money.
The last member who stood up tried to express that these particular students came from all walks of life. Usually they have the same Christian background and belief, but oftentimes their parents have different levels of income.
While that $760,000 is a drop in the bucket to this government, it's a fairly significant amount of money for those 1,360 students. Even if this government removes it and sends a signal that I don't believe it should be sending to the independent schools -- the signal that in fact they still feel that these particular schools are "bastions of privilege" -- even if that money is removed, these people are committed. Their children will still go to those schools because they will put their education dollars up front; they will make all kinds of other sacrifices in order to achieve what they want for their children. It will just make it that much more difficult, but I'm sure they will rise to the occasion.
When we look at the education system as a whole in British Columbia, we have to understand that there is a need to have an alternative to the public system. There is a need for something else out there to which we can measure the public system.
In School District 56, we have one of the larger private systems in the northern part of the province. School District 56 has about 3,100 students in the public system, and the private schools within the community of Vanderhoof have very near 600 students.
The budget that the province would have to face if it were to be funding all those 600 students in the public system would be substantially higher in School District 56. And that's all that would be achieved, because in that district the private system works together with the public system. They share one another's facilities; they share transportation; they work together for the betterment of the community, each within their own system. This government should be encouraging the private school system, not discouraging it.
When we look back at 1988 in the Legislature we see, when we read Hansard, that the then-member of Prince George North, who is now the Minister of Government Services, said: "I am anticipating once again that we'll see increases in the independent schools budget, and it's an absolute sham." We know, then, what one cabinet minister feels about the independent system.
We talk within this bill about allowing independent schools holding group 4 classification to issue British Columbia certificates of graduation. On examination of that we find that there are approximately 14 such schools in British Columbia which in fact cater primarily to foreign students. There can be only one reason for this initiative, and that's to meet the BCTF's criteria, because if there is even one instructor, whether that be a mechanical instructor or some form of trades instructor, the school cannot issue certificates of graduation. Obviously this minister and this government are still dealing with the wishes of the executive of the BCTF first and with education to British Columbians second.
In this section we also see reference to amalgamating or bringing together the group 5 schools with the group 3 schools. What the minister doesn't tell you is that presently there aren't any group 5 schools. There's a classification, but nobody fits within that classification. This is a straight attack on a particular segment of private schools, and there can be no doubt about it.
What I really don't understand is why, when the efficiencies are there -- to the best of my knowledge, in visiting many of these schools and in watching some of these children go out into the world facing the same pressures as any other child in the province -- they've competed. They've competed, and yet we as a society have educated them for 90 percent less than what it costs us to educate our public school students. It's obvious what the philosophical approach of this government is; it's obvious what the attack of this bill is. For those reasons I'll be voting against it.
H. De Jong: This bill is probably not all bad. It contains some things which will improve the administration of the system. But the most controversial aspect of this legislation is the withdrawal of funding for group 3 schools which do not use the B.C. Ministry of Education's standards curriculum. It is the philosophy behind this change which I must object to very strenuously. The vast majority of these schools would be called fundamentalist or evangelical, although not all group 3 schools are such, nor are all evangelical-based schools in group 3, by any means. But that is predominantly the nature of these schools, which have in many cases chosen not to follow some aspects of the B.C. curriculum.
Under this bill, such dissenting schools would lose the very modest 10 percent operating funding to which they are currently entitled. This is not an economy measure on the part of the government. There is not a general cutback in Bill 20. Rather, evangelical schools which choose to be conscientious objectors to any part of the standard provincial curriculum are being singled out in a most unfortunate way. What the government is saying to these parents is: "You must support with your taxes some values with which you do not agree, and even a modest direction of your share of educational taxes to schools which teach your values or which educate in a supportive way, rather than undermining your deeply held family values and beliefs...." To these parents this is not only render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; this is render unto Caesar 100 percent.
Other provinces have been more tolerant of religious dissent. They have recognized the very diversity -- in an ethnic, multicultural sense -- of which the NDP is constantly speaking. They have recognized how basic religion and education is to a cultural diversity, and have provided alternative curricula. They have not insisted in forcing a single set of views on society as a qualification for even minimal financial return of parents' tax dollars to educate their own children. This is only a reasonable exercise in humility. As yesterday's
[ Page 6330 ]
dogma has often become today's folly, even the best minds of today are only human. In years to come, who knows which of our current certainties will be regarded as primitive or silly or simply unfathomable ignorance? Which of us is infallible? Have we already forgotten about Galileo? We forever hear about right-wing tolerance, but here we have a clear case of left-wing intolerance, and I dearly hope for a similar outcry.
[5:00]
Let us all reflect for a moment on the liberties which we enjoy, such as freedom of the press and freedom of religion, and the terrible price that was paid in human lives for those liberties, which hundreds of millions in China and other countries today still do not enjoy. Can we really afford to forget how much our freedoms cost? At one time, Foxe's Book of Martyrs was a well-known volume which had a great impact in reminding readers of the savage depression which had often been met by religious dissenters. Today we often see films depicting more recent brutality against religious minorities -- sadly, in our own century, in which the inventions of modern technology have been employed to multiply the harm done by persecutors to astonishing dimensions.
So I'm really astonished that this minister and this government would be seeking to make life harder for religious communities which, admittedly, do not apparently fit the government's criteria for politically correct thought. Surely they can appreciate that the measure of their tolerance is not how much freedom they are prepared to extend to those whose views they like. Exactly the opposite is true. How much liberty they are willing to extend to those whose views are vastly different from theirs and even offensive to them is the real test of how committed the NDP is to civil rights. Schools are the seedbeds in which we plant both knowledge and values which will nourish the next generation. They are vital to sustaining communities and societies.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
What is the situation at the present time? Since the 1950s the social glue has really come apart. British Columbia has perhaps the widest variety of religious and non-religious belief systems anywhere. I'm not talking about cults, which involve personal domination and mind control by a single individual or small group. I'm talking about different ways of looking at the meaning of life -- why we are here and where we should be going. There is less agreement about values than ever before. In response to that, our public schools, which are financed by everyone's tax dollars, have become extremely nervous about values. If any values are being deliberately passed on in our public schools, they are the latest trendy interpretation of the lowest common denominator. In our society today, with so little agreement about these matters, they could end up being very low indeed.
In the realm of politics we have all heard of anti-business propaganda in public schools in the guise of environmental concern. This is one case where the IWA is probably on the same side as the Council of Forest Industries in believing that this is not appropriate. For that matter, we have all heard more about NDP teachers than any other kind. I'm sure the government knows this, as you would have to have been deaf, dumb and blind from birth in this province not to have noticed that teachers who share the majority free enterprise philosophy are fewer and feel a responsibility or even a need to be quieter about it than those who do not.
Compounding this, the incidence of juvenile crime and social ills such as drug abuse and teenage pregnancy have reached tragic proportions in U.S. public schools already, and are threatening to take the same toll in our own country. In our public schools today the Bible is just another book, and what was once considered normal school discipline is now almost a crime.
It is important for us to remember that these changes are not ancient history but have come about in the last 30 years -- in one generation, compared with all the generations which came before. Not everyone in our society is convinced that these changes represent progress, and given the widespread unhappiness and sense of emptiness which leads so many young people to drop out or to indulge in drug abuse, those people do have a right to be skeptical.
Teachers are overwhelmed by non-teaching needs resulting from family breakdown, mainstreaming of special-needs students and so on, which combine the roles of day care and parenting with that of the educator. Yet at the same time that they sense these needs, they lack or are denied the essential mandate and authority to perform these roles in an adequate way.
So if you're not a socialist, if you're not a secular humanist, not a supporter of juvenile sexual and chemical experimentation, or even if you are fearful for your child's physical safety in gang-infested neighbourhoods, you may feel uncomfortable with the public school system, or at least wish to have a range of alternatives. Add to these concerns, which most parents probably feel to some degree, the situation of a person whose religious views do not conform to those of mainstream churches -- a situation that requires some sensitivity, I would suggest, rather than condemnation on the part of the government.
Some people will undoubtedly say: "Oh yes, but you can't have taxpayers subsidizing minority beliefs." That would be a fair comment if the dissenters could be conscientious objectors to the secular, humanist schools and have the option, whether through a voucher system or in some other way, of directing their share of education taxes to schools. I would be congratulating the courageous consistency of NDP statements of concern for human rights that such a move would indicate; but sadly, I cannot. Bill 20 moves in the exact opposite direction. It helps to stifle dissent from the prevailing, trendy ethic of political correctness.
No doubt the NDP will strongly defend your right to be an agnostic or to follow their definition of an alternative lifestyle. But should that alternative lifestyle be that of an evangelical Christian church or of some other unfashionable minority faith, you might as well
[ Page 6331 ]
tattoo a scarlet letter on your forehead as expect fair treatment. You will be taxed to support a system that may at times be hostile to some of your most cherished beliefs without any support whatsoever for a different view. In effect, you will experience double taxation, the modern equivalent to the infamous Asian head tax that this House has unanimously condemned. With this bill, we have a dissenter's education tax and the suspicion that the letters NDP will now stand for no dissent permitted.
I wonder if the minister is really aware of the history of Rhode Island. It was established in 1629 by Roger Williams, Stukeley Westcott and other former members of the Puritan congregation at Salem, Massachusetts, who objected to the state establishment of religion. They founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious freedom. Salem maintained state control. While 63 years later Salem experienced the famous witch trials, no such horrors occurred in Rhode Island. Because intolerance is so much easier under state control, even in a province as tolerant as British Columbia we should not take our freedoms for granted. We all remember what happened to Japanese-Canadians here during the Second World War. We also remember the laws against the native potlatch and the way that British Columbian Indian students had their native language beaten out of them in residential schools.
In the Salem witch-hunt, someone who refused to plead to the charges against him was put under a board or a door, and stones were piled up until he either entered a plea or was crushed. Giles Corey, one of the people falsely accused of witchcraft, suffered this fate. The minister may recall that this episode was dramatized in Arthur Miller's famous play, The Crucible. Giles Corey's defiant last words to his tormenters were: "More weight!" Sadly, more weight is precisely what the government has in mind for schools that reflect diversity -- which is a sin in the eyes of the NDP orthodoxy. No doubt they are doubly condemned in that they resist the monopoly of governments politically and especially of the BCTF. I wonder if the minister has any idea, in view of years of NDP statements about human rights, how open Bill 20 leaves the government to a charge of hypocrisy and to a belief that human rights under this government are not for evangelical Christians or other dissenters of conscience, but that only NDP dissenters need apply. Surely the party which itself has been in opposition for so long, and which indeed was elected by a minority of voters, can learn to sympathize with the concerns of a minority of conscience -- even one that is not sympathetic to their philosophy. No doubt these people are inconvenient to the financial interests of the BCTF, and their religious beliefs are perhaps even abhorrent to the minister and her colleagues, yet let us stop and think for a minute. Are we labelling here simply one more class of inconvenient people? What is to be their fate?
Group 3 schools are not part of the Federation of Independent Schools, but the federation opposes this move to cut off their already very restricted funding. They agree with the minister's concern to maintain academic standards and suggest a reasonable compromise: fair and unbiased, standardized tests, which would assure a quality standard was being maintained at any school receiving support from the taxpayers. Such tests are readily available. I understand that Saskatchewan schools equivalent to our group 3 schools go along with this procedure. But that is not an option in Bill 20. Bill 20 only serves to reinforce suspicion of the government's true motives underlying this legislation.
[5:15]
One of the concerns we hear from employers as well as parents is that we are teaching all sorts of things at great expense in our public schools, yet we are not achieving a universal degree of literacy. I would be interested to know what evidence the minister has that the literacy of group 3 school graduates differs from graduates of other schools in our province. If there is such evidence, would not mandatory, standardized testing of our graduating students give all parents and taxpayers a fair standard by which to judge the choices offered them? What could be fairer than that? Or is it simply a case of prearranged, pre-trial execution carried out under the pretense of fiscal restraint and maintaining undefined standards? If this bill were truly and accurately aimed at greater assurance of value for scarce tax dollars, I would wholeheartedly support it, but clearly it is not. The government is fully aware that independent schools provide more cost-effective education in many cases than government schools. But to act on the consequences of that fact would fly in the face of socialist dogma, so the government continues to go the other way, sad to say.
At present most people are afraid to encourage independent schools as major educational alternatives because of the fear that it would add fuel to ethnic, class and religious differences. They defend government schools as a needed melting pot. Given the crime level in some of our schools today, however, unless the government and the courts are prepared to return some real power of discipline to teachers, it is more like a meltdown than a melting pot. With the gang violence in some Vancouver schools, I'm not sure that a teacher dare risk giving real discipline even if he were allowed to. It is my belief that we are in far more danger of becoming like New York City or Detroit through the degeneration of our public schools than of becoming Northern Ireland through encouraging independent schools. We have far more to fear from big government and big unions than we do from the teaching of religious values in independent school classrooms. I know this is the bogeyman, but with materialistic values bombarding children on every side from an early age, education with a spiritual dimension could provide a positive balance to a culture that increasingly seems to honour the twisted and bizarre. Today we constantly fill young minds with garbage, and we recycle it endlessly. This is the one form of recycling that is unhealthy for the social environment. I'm pleased that some federal politicians are now at least talking about the sad state of television, which they regulate.
This is no longer strictly a right-wing cause. Left-wing feminists, for instance, have noticed that slasher movies and violent pornography can lead to
[ Page 6332 ]
increased violence against women. It is high time for all of us to ask how this kind of sensational material has become so prevalent. There is a very true saying that nature abhors a vacuum. If the family and the schools don't provide a positive moral structure for young people, that space inside them will be filled with whatever can seep in. We have seen plenty of evidence of that, with 20,000 juvenile crimes a year now in our province. Even 12-year-olds are getting involved with serious crimes. Ideas have consequences; values really do matter. If more and more parents choose alternatives to the melting pot, who can blame them? Victoria police will tell you that they find teenagers engaging in prostitution five or six blocks from this building. Any morning you can read the latest horror stories about children stabbing cab drivers or Chinese restaurant owners being shaken down by youth gangs.
When teachers' unions justify holding our children as economic hostages, what sort of system are we building that parents shouldn't trust their sons and daughters to it? If taxpayers in B.C. were suddenly to enjoy as many democratic rights as are afforded in other places, it would be a different situation. Government, after all, as the assurer of quality and opportunity but not necessarily being the provider of educational services, has a mandate to ensure that all children receive an education. Times are changing, and new ways of educating are being sought by open-minded supporters of affordable high-quality education in many jurisdictions. In Wisconsin, a coalition of black Democrats looking to improve a desperate inner-city situation joined with rural and suburban Republicans committed to broadening school choice and passed a voucher system for low-income families through their legislature. In Chicago, operations of some inner-city public schools have been delegated to the parents whose children attend the school. In our own province, even so staunch a defender of government delivery of education services as Crawford Kilian is now suggesting that some basic rethinking of the school itself is necessary in light of modern technology.
As with Bill 15, the government lags far behind the public and is trying to ride yesterday's wave to the future. I'm not saying that I'm a fashion plate, but when the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology introduced this Bill 15 for second reading, I had to check to see if he was wearing bell-bottomed trousers, because it seemed like he had been playing Rip Van Winkle for the past couple of decades. The intellectual action today is not at all in the direction Bill 20 will take us. It is in the direction of encouraging choice, not discouraging it. It is in the direction of reinforcing parental values and involvement, not downgrading them. It is not in nationalizing our kids in supposedly value-free factories in which the values they actually acquire encourage them to turn off and to drop out.
Trying not to teach values does not mean children will be unaffected. If nothing else, it will mean they get the incredibly destructive message that values don't matter. I can think of no better way to abandon the promise of the future than that. I believe people need moral values, and I believe schools need to teach them. In a society as diverse as ours there are tremendous limits to what can be taught on the moral plane through public schools. We recognized that in bringing family life education into the schools in a way that was sensitive to that diversity, parents who were trying to impart traditional moral values to their children should not be undermined in their efforts by the weight of contrary views in the public school system.
I would also like to suggest that the minister consider Michael Medved's book Hollywood vs. America, in which the respected film critic demonstrates that the movie industry's neglect of potential film-goers with traditional beliefs has cost the industry half its audience and that it continues its mind-set in spite of figures that show that general-rated films do better at the box office than parental guidance films. Even these films do better than those with the restricted rating. He is not a Christian fundamentalist, by the way, but a conservative Jew who is appalled at the prevailing anti-religious, anti-traditional, anti-business bigotry, which he documents not just in films but throughout our popular culture. To fair-minded people, Bill 20 is just such a bigoted bill, coming from the same mind-set that turns a blind eye to every form of moral decay and then uses the terrible consequences to justify even more centralized government control over our lives. It's to be run by an arrogant, self-anointed, socialistic elite which is contemptuous of the basic values of simple decency held by the majority of common people it pretends to serve.
In overall budget terms the funding is small, but the principle is great.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I must advise you that your allotted time is up.
V. Anderson: I'm very interested in what the speaker has to say, Mr. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. This is not committee, and the member's time cannot be extended. Are there any further speakers?
D. Symons: I'd like to say a few words about Bill 20. I find some things in it are what I suspect the bill is purported to be, and that is a bit of a housekeeping bill to tidy things up. But at the same time, I do find there are some areas of concern. The first area of concern deals with the preamble. There's a change, an extra phrase added in there and an extra "whereas." I'm not too sure that the new addition to this really adds anything that the original preamble didn't. They've added a couple of extra words to the original: "...contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic" -- those two words were not in the original -- "society and a prosperous and sustainable economy."
I always have a concern that the more people seem to protest and want to use the word democratic, it often means they're planning on doing the opposite. I find that when people feel the necessity to claim they're strengthening democracy, indeed it's a cover for the fact that they are infiltrating and weakening democratic
[ Page 6333 ]
procedure. I should hope in a society like Canada's that we don't have to go out there, hold our hands over our hearts and say that we are democratic and all that sort of thing. I believe it should be self-evident, and I'm somewhat concerned about why the government feels the necessity for adding the words "democratic and pluralistic society" in here. Indeed, I believe that's what Canada is, and that goes without saying. Obviously government members feel that it's necessary to say that. I had that as my first concern. Why are they touchy on that subject and feel that it must be included? Does our Canada not already embrace that? Why is it there? I was concerned also with section 2. I think my concern has been answered by a further examination of the bill. They talk about areas that are not included in the independent school. They talk about a school that "solely offers religious instruction, solely offers language instruction, solely offers a program of social or cultural activities, solely offers a program of recreational or athletic activities." I suppose that if it offers some of those but not solely, then it might also be an independent school.
Where I agree in a sense with the bill is that I believe in order for independent schools to be in funded in any way by the taxpayer, they must carry out the functions of the public school system: that is, they must give the full curriculum to the students they enrol. In that sense it must perform a parallel function to the public school system. I believe that many private schools in the province indeed do that. A good number of those fall under groups 1 and 2, which do receive funding from the government. In that sense I suspect that the government really saves money, because they give them less money than they would get if those students were going to a public school. The per-student allotment for those going to private schools is considerably less than for those in the public school system. So I think the taxpayer comes off pretty well in that respect. I don't believe that we should be doing anything to discourage people who feel that they can offer something more through a private school system, which maybe they want their students to have. The option should be there.
[5:30]
Perhaps my main concern with this bill is not what is in it but indeed where this bill might be indicating this government is headed. It's basically cutting out one of the categories of independent schools that does receive some funding, and that concerns me greatly. It seems to be an indication that maybe this government is moving in the direction of the lessening funding of and support for independent schools in the province. I would speak strongly against the government moving in that direction.
For many years the independent schools in Canada have performed a vital service to the education of students in the country. As a matter of fact, the first schools in Canada were primarily private schools. They were often run by religious organizations, and were paid for and funded through those organizations. They performed a needed function for the students who attended them. For the parents who care to enrol their students in a private school a function is performed which those parents feel is necessary in a free and democratic society. I would be somewhat apprehensive, I suppose, as to whether this bill is the first salvo or that thin edge of the wedge moving in there to take funding away from the independent school system in the province. I believe that that would be a wrong move on the part of the government, because those schools offer a vital service to the parents and students of this province.
More often we will find a stronger teaching of morals and religion in the independent school system, but I will particularly look at the moral aspect of life. Maybe there is not enough direction in the public school system for defining right and wrong. The previous speaker made some comments about where society is headed and that nowadays young people seem to be rudderless. In the independent school system I think we find that many of these schools offer that sort of moral ground on which these students can find themselves in today's society. In that sense I would very strongly support the continuation of that type of school.
When we get further along in the bill, I find that it removes reference to certificates for group 3 classification. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, it seems a bit superfluous when you're moving a reference and consolidating group 3 with group 5 and there are no schools that come under that category. One would wonder why you are consolidating one group with a group that is basically non-existent. It makes me wonder where this bill is headed and exactly what is in the minds of the government that is bringing in these changes at this particular time. I have those concerns also.
In section 4, where the minister can determine the educational resources and materials that independent schools are entitled to receive, I find some merit in that because I do believe there should be some continuity between the public and private school systems with the materials and so forth that are used. I hope, however, that this isn't an open-ended sort of power that has been given to the minister where someone with a particular viewpoint -- a particular religious persuasion, or possibly no religious persuasion -- might use it to deny others the opportunity to have their viewpoints. I think there's a bit of a problem here in that it could build into a misuse of authority at some future date.
We find that the minister is permitted to differentiate between independent schools in terms of the supplies they receive and may purchase, depending on the classification of the school, the district it is in and the enrolment of that particular independent school. I sympathize that the ministry does need some control over independent schools in the province to ensure that they're receiving and using materials that adequately address the curriculum needs of students. But again, it seems to be a wide-ranging power that has been given to the minister, and it would have to be used with great discretion. The current minister may indeed use it with that needed discretion. When we change a bill we have to make sure that it is not dependent on the particular individual that currently holds that office. It must cover all situations and all possibilities. I find that maybe this bill is short a bit in that particular instance.
[ Page 6334 ]
We also find in a further section that "on the recommendation of the minister, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may pay a special purpose grant" to the authority. I suppose the minister has that authority and can indeed do things, but again the "may" part implies that they may or may not. I suppose, in these various things about ministerial discretion, that I would like to see, possibly within the bill or somewhere in the act, something that could spell out exactly what is expected at these schools and indeed the parameters under which the minister will use this discretion. I'm not too sure whether those parameters are contained in this amendment to the bill. Indeed, under the amendment here, ministerial discretion on things of that sort will be added in under section 11.2. I'm very curious, then, as to where the limits are. I believe that those parameters are not in the amendment here and possibly should be.
In section 6, I find that for the group 4 schools I had some concerns where it made reference to allowing the ability in group 4 independent schools for graduation -- about the certificates for all of its teachers. Indeed I can see that in order for schools to give a graduation certificate, one would want those schools to have taught the full curriculum and to have qualified teachers to teach them. But I would suspect, having taught in a public school for 30 years, that within any school system there would be instances when you could have somebody who does not hold a certificate teaching a particular course in a school that might possibly not require that they have B.C. certification.
I can see here that if you were to bring somebody into a school that's teaching religious instruction along with one of the extra courses it's doing, it would say that that person, even though it's not part of their curriculum, would have to be certificated. It would seem that you could bring in somebody to do a course in comparative religion or something which is not part of any normal school curriculum. So I would like to see this amended, possibly when the bill comes up for third reading, so that the teachers of those courses which are part of the normal public school curriculum should be certificated. I think that teachers and instructors brought in for some of these extra courses that the public schools often exist for need not be certificated. So there was another concern that I had with this bill.
I believe those were most of the comments I want to make. I'll just take one quick check here. I wasn't quite sure, and I'll expect some clarification during third reading on where this talks about at least half of the students enrolled in the independent schools being qualifying students or partially qualifying students. I suppose that there could be many students in there who don't fit, either by age or something else, into the public school system. I'm assuming that this is what it's referring to, and I'll have to check that out in the intervening time between second and third readings.
I find it's required for group 3 classification that the independent school will undergo an evaluation satisfactory to the inspector. Certainly I would commend the bill in that respect, because I believe that all public and independent schools should be evaluated and inspected to make sure they are meeting the requirements in order that all students graduating from any school system in British Columbia have received an adequate education and that the goals mentioned in the preamble of this particular act are fulfilled. With those few words, I would end my comments on the bill.
Seeing the time, and as I believe there are no other speakers, I wonder if I might move adjournment of the debate at this time.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I believe that Committee A is going to report.
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:52 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'll bring the committee's attention to two documents that have been handed out. The yellow document is the sessional orders as amended earlier in the session, which in some respects permit the sitting of this committee, and also provide for the minister to defer the answering of questions to deputy ministers. The blue document is an excerpt from Standing Orders that describes, in fairly brief detail, the governance of this committee, and the parameters that guide the Chair around those items that come directly under the minister's office. And now I recognize the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Hon. J. Cashore: I rise today to present the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1993-94 estimates. This ministry has a very broad mandate. Our mission is to manage, protect and enhance the environment; to manage and allocate Crown land; to protect and manage provincial parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves; and to manage information relating to the land base of the province. To achieve this enormous challenge the ministry has been allocated
[ Page 6335 ]
$241.3 million and 2,341 full-time employees. In rough terms, the B.C. environment program has $170 million, B.C. Lands has $37 million and B.C. Parks has $35 million.
Government was faced with some very difficult challenges and choices this year. The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is sound and balanced. This approach is essential, given the serious fiscal situation. The difficult choices mean that my ministry, among others, must absorb a decrease in funding this year.
Given this challenge, there is much positive news. For example, we will soon release a discussion paper on water management that seeks input from all parts of the province. We have made much progress toward better environmental legislation that will take us beyond the end of the century. Globally, this legislation will position British Columbia at the forefront of environmental protection. This ministry has consulted thousands of British Columbians about new legislation. Environmental protection discussion papers have brought together many groups. Comprehensive contaminated sites legislation will strengthen the law to ensure polluters are accountable. The waste reduction commissioner is finding answers to the pressing problems of household hazardous and biochemical waste through broad-based consultation.
The point is that we are listening. Other achievements include strong Commission on Resources and Environment participation on the regional tables, and a protected-areas strategy that will be a model for the world and will help protect the ecology of the province for future generations. We have announced many new parks, including Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, Broughton Archipelago, Parkinson Creek Park, the Helliwell Park addition, and five north coast marine parks.
We are making progress towards a better relationship with first nations through consultation and government-to-government procedures. We have established a set of guidelines that address the contentious issue of aboriginal hunting and fishing. These interim guidelines set rigid standards for conservation and enforcement, but at the same time will allow us to develop local agreements for an equitable sharing of fish and wildlife between the aboriginal community and other users.
No one denies the issues are tough, but we are making solid progress. For example, the Kemano review will find a way to minimize environmental and social impacts; the Clayoquot decision will always be contentious, but it was right for the future; and fees and revenue increases are essential to support the pressing demand that society has for services such as monitoring and enforcement. All of these pressures and many more face government daily.
The gains we have made have been protected. In my ministry we responded by increasing the size of the conservation officer service. We have established a freedom-of-information branch to ensure all British Columbians have access to government information. We have established a network of forest ecosystem specialists. These specialists will be a major factor in the vital changes in forest practices in every part of the province. We have established a special investigation unit to find and apprehend those who deal in the sale or trade of wild animals. Recent successes of this group include the bear parts case.
We have made very significant progress, and will continue to do so. We will continue and expand our dialogue with aboriginal peoples. This government established the Commission on Resources and Environment last year. CORE is a vital step towards the goal of effective land use planning. The CORE process will find workable solutions to tough, contentious problems. We will continue to work toward our goal of protecting 12 percent of the province for key ecological, cultural and recreational values. We will continue to ensure our conservation officer service ranks as one of the best in the world. We will continue to ensure that British Columbia remains one of the most compelling destinations in the world for appreciation of fish and wildlife. The State of the Environment Report for British Columbia is an example of good open government, an objective analysis of the current state of B.C.'s environment which recognizes that we have made a difference, and that improvements are necessary and more needs to be done.
As I close this brief discussion, I encourage the members opposite to work with us to find consensus solutions to the many pressing issues before us. Together, our legacy will be a better quality of life for our children and our future.
[3:00]
Hon. Chair, I would like to introduce officials who are present with me: Gerry Armstrong, the deputy minister; Greg Koyl, assistant deputy minister of management services, Jon O'Riordan, assistant deputy minister of environmental management; Judy Pryce, manager of special accounts and revenue; and Kathy Bryce, director of financial services.
G. Wilson: Until the official opposition critic is here to take on a more formal approach, I had asked if I could have leave to direct some questions to the minister with respect to Crown holdings and the Lands portion of this ministry. In particular, I want to ask the minister what the current status is of the foreshore leases that exist in the province, if indeed there is a program for the sale of those leases, and if that is so, to what extent the Crown has embarked upon the disposal of Crown foreshore leases by way of private sale or through public auction. Could you tell us what kind of revenue has come forward with respect to those foreshore leases to date?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I would like to say I appreciate the hon. member being present to ask a question. I understand there was some miscommunication with regard to the timing of the beginning of this discussion.
I'm not sure if the hon. member is aware, but in discussion with the Environment critic for the Liberal Party, there was an agreement that we would start off with issues under the Environment part of the ministry, and then deal with Crown lands and Parks issues.
[ Page 6336 ]
G. Wilson: In light of that -- and as there was indeed some miscommunication -- as that question has been logged, I'll have an opportunity to come back; I'll perhaps ask it later in the estimates.
J. Tyabji: Just for the minister's information, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was covering for me, because with the miscommunication we've had a problem getting some things together.
With regard to vote 32, I'd like to talk about the increase in salaries. You've got a 7.8 percent increase. Is this a result of the BCGEU settlement, or are additional costs being brought to bear on that?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's partly GEU, and partly some step increases that are part of the ongoing administrative process with regard to employee contracts.
J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that you're saying that part of the 7.8 percent increase is BCGEU and part of it is employee contracts? Is that private contracts, or consulting contracts? How does that break down?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's part of the regular process by which employees are entitled to step increases based on longevity of employment and that type of consideration. It also relates to pay equity factors as well.
J. Tyabji: Next you've got almost a 33 percent increase in your office. What is that attributed to?
Hon. J. Cashore: To assist us with this question, would the hon. member identify the line she is referring to in the budget documents, so that we can clarify it?
J. Tyabji: It's an office expense increase of $6,500. I don't have the document in front of me here, but that's the one I'm referring to.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have a document here from the 1993-94 estimates which indicates that the increase is 1.8 percent from the 1992-93 estimates. I would be glad to share that with the hon. member.
J. Tyabji: Actually, I'd like to leave that line of questioning for a while. It's not something I'm quite as interested in.
If we look at the budget highlights in the document.... It was a very useful briefing, by the way, that we received from your staff, as well as the document outlining some of the breakdowns. I want to get to the budget highlights. You've got the protected-areas strategy, CORE planning, aboriginal issues, freedom of information, Fraser Basin Management Board, etc. I'm looking at tab 3 in this book.
You've got your government's priorities outlined, and I think that's very useful. During the briefing it seemed pretty obvious that under these priorities the approach the ministry is taking is very much a consulting approach, and there are a lot of committees involved in most of them. I'm just wondering how many committees.... I know you've got it all broken down right now into these separate projects, but has anyone done an analysis of how many committees there are in total, or representatives -- for example, committees through CORE and committees that relate to aboriginal issues, the Fraser Basin Management Board, the protected-areas strategy, and potential-legislation committees? There are so many different consultation procedures here. So that's one question: how many committees and how much...? Then I've got some specifics under each one of them. Has that been done in terms of the cross-referencing?
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member is referring to these particular items -- protected-areas strategy, CORE planning process, aboriginal issues, freedom of information, Fraser Basin Management Board, major legislation development, conservation officers and land acquisition -- we could come back with an answer on each one of those and give you a total. But it would take quite a bit of explanation with regard to each one, so it would just appear that somehow there were a bunch of committees sitting around doing nothing of significance. These committees are a process whereby, in many instances, members of the public have an opportunity to participate in land use planning processes at a time when it is very clearly recognized how important that is to all people in all parts of the province. It is appropriate to raise this from the perspective of spending, because one of the pressures on government, while trying as much as possible.... At the same time, the public has to be cognizant of the costs of those processes. I think that's an appropriate concern.
I don't have that number of committees, off the top of my head. I think that in some ways there are committees and committees. For instance, under the CORE planning process, we have the three CORE tables in the three designated areas. Then there are some other processes that involve other ministries, such as local planning processes in different areas that are carried out, I think, with input from the CORE values and the CORE process. There is a protected-areas strategy. Again, all of those processes are coordinated.
Having introduced the interim management guidelines on aboriginal issues, our officials are now, to the greatest extent possible, consulting with first nations about the issue of allocation. So it is true that there are a number of processes underway, but when you examine what those are, it all makes sense.
The Chair: I think it would be appropriate at this time for the Chair to remind all hon. members, critics and the minister that responses should be directed through the Chair, please.
J. Tyabji: It's not so much an approach with regard to cost, although I know that these days, yes, we have to be very aware of how much everything is costing. The big concern I have is that when I hear about the Ministry of Forests -- and we've got what I refer to as the new structure in the Ministry of Forests -- with 13 or however many regional committees, 13 members per committee, with a provincial overcommittee with 13 members; and the Ministry of Environment with CORE and the aboriginal committees and the protected-areas strategy committee, and then regional district committees, depending on the issue....
[ Page 6337 ]
First of all, I don't think that the government or the cabinet committee has defined who owns the land use strategy. Who is the person, or which committee or which process will say: here is the one definitive map of the province, divided up this way. I haven't seen that yet. That's where I have concern: there's only one map of the province, and yet we have so many different processes cutting it up. Yes, I definitely applaud the idea of public input. But these strategies.... If you look at the budget highlights, and the expenditures with regard to these committees, and then you take into account the regular operations of the ministry that also include public process -- the pesticide application processes and all the others -- because we don't have.... CORE, for example, which is mandated to develop a land use strategy for the province, is not allowed to look at aboriginal issues. The Minister of Environment can't look at aboriginal issues. So that has to go under the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. But they can't look at land use issues that have to do with conservation, because that's Environment. Forestry needs to look at land use strategy for the working forest. But then Mining wants to know what they have access to. I mean, here I just see the public process being crushed by the committees. I don't really care whether there's ten or 15 committees; we can sit and argue about how many committees are on the head of a pin, but that's not what I'm getting at.
What I'm trying to say is: at which point is there going to be a funnel to bring this together? If I'm a member of the public who says, "I really care about a land use strategy," and right here we've got all kinds of funds to go through for public input, how many committees do I have to go to, to get the same message across? And when I'm finished, how do I know or have any confidence that this is the right place to go for the definitive structure or answer, or the last map of the province we need to look at?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question of who decides, the CORE legislation makes it very clear that CORE carries out a land use planning process for the province, starting in three specific identified areas, but with a mandate that is provincewide. So certainly CORE is in a provincewide situation with regard to the ultimate CORE land use plan for the province.
But who decides? The CORE process has to decide on what recommendations to make to government. Ultimately the elected government decides on the final map. Therefore the CORE process, the committees that relate to that process and the work we do with first nations -- which, by the way, is part of the work of CORE that is done without prejudice to the issue of government-to-government negotiations on treaty-making -- lead toward the time when a set of recommendations is made by CORE to government. That will be done publicly, because one of the elements of very good government is the way in which we crafted the CORE process. Their recommendations will be made publicly, and under the gaze of public scrutiny government will make the decision, which is government's responsibility. The process exists to assist with decision-making.
There are a number of aspects to this process in order to enable the widest possible, and the greatest potential for, public consensus. But the fact is that where consensus is not possible, CORE will still be making recommendations. Where CORE makes recommendations, it's government that decides.
J. Tyabji: The reason that I have concerns about CORE.... I have from the beginning, and I agree that the way the bill was crafted.... As the minister knows, during the debate I had some problems with the amount of power that was given to the individual. It is very good that the individual is able to report out publicly, so that the public is aware of the findings of CORE. The government seems to be placing a lot of faith in CORE on the one hand, in terms of the eventual process. But on the other hand, last year and, of course, very recently we saw some decisions that fell within the general mandate of CORE -- I'm not talking about the specific mandate -- where CORE's ability to function with the confidence of the public was greatly undermined.
[3:15]
My prediction for CORE right from the beginning was that that was going to happen, because the political reality is that cabinet ends up making some decisions that are within the mandate of CORE and that give the public a loss of confidence. We may see that process fail, unfortunately. If we want to spend a couple of minutes on CORE by itself, I feel extremely concerned with CORE, because if you follow some of the....
First of all, the first hands-on experience I had with CORE was at a Sechelt meeting. There was a group of people in Sechelt who had spent a lot of time and had a lot of recommendations for the land use strategy process. They sat down with one of the nine principals of CORE and repeatedly asked her: "How do we implement this piece of paper that we have right here for this regionally based decision from all the people, from all the local stakeholders -- everything that CORE is aspiring to do? She said: "Well, I can't help you with that, because we're just developing the process for bringing in input." These people were so far ahead of what CORE was trying to be in a year that CORE didn't have any ability to serve them. And she ended up saying: "Well, you know, maybe you should deal with your local MLA or go to cabinet." This doesn't work because then you have individuals heading through the regular political process while CORE is striking their own committee.
That same evening we went up to Powell River and there must have been 40 stakeholders around the table there. They were from water quality interests, from the regional district, from the local forestry company, from small business -- there was everyone there. This was about eight months ago, and they had spent about three years coming to and consolidating a position that the community could live with. They were in the last stages of putting a report together, and they said: Do we give this to you, and then do you make sure that it comes about because here is our regional plan? If we don't represent all the people that CORE thinks we should represent, who do we need to add?" They were very
[ Page 6338 ]
frustrated at the end at that meeting because she didn't have any answers for them.
Another example is in Williams Lake, where you have your Anahim Lake group. From the beginning there were some problems there, because whether it was true or not, some of the stakeholders at the table felt that CORE was bypassing their interests and was biased on the environmental side. That's been a problem from day one, and a problem that will be, of course, reinforced by, most recently, the controversy that the commissioner has received over the cabinet decision on land use, which has put him in a position of looking, from industry's perspective, as if he has some kind of bias. As an individual, I don't have a problem with what he said. Bt in terms of the process, if we're to have any faith in it, I think CORE may end up self-destructing if there isn't a better definition of what CORE is mandated to do.
If the government is putting all their faith in CORE, for the mandate, I submit that it just can't follow through. I've got more to say on this, but to tie it back to the original point with regard to the committees, I don't believe CORE has ownership of the land use strategy, because we have a protected-areas strategy and a parks plan, as well as parks being implemented and foreshore leases being sold. We've got so many things that are supposed to be in the mandate of CORE, and the government is making decisions on them in an ad hoc manner.
So I don't know what's going to be left, and it would be really unfortunate if this ministry went out of their way to solicit public input from all these millions of committees and at the end of it, there was nothing left for them to make a decision on because it had all been done independently of this committee process. The whole point is that there are too many committees, there doesn't seem to be enough coordination of decision-making at the top and no one knows who has ownership of the issue. I don't believe it's CORE, or if it is CORE, then I think a lot of the decisions that have been made in the last year need to be reversed, because otherwise CORE is not going to be left with anything to have a mandate over.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the Sechelt example, it is my understanding that this is a watershed plan that's coordinated by the Ministry of Forests and our regional office, which is headquartered in Surrey. It's not a CORE process as such at the present time; it's part of ongoing interagency consultations which, whether or not CORE existed, would be taking place as part of the ongoing work of government, much of which is interagency. I think that some of the standards and values that are fundamental to the CORE legislation are implicit in a number of these processes that are taking place, and that's very worthwhile.
The fact is that CORE is very clearly within the context of provincial policy. It is designed to enable the province to make appropriate land use decisions. Indeed, it has been given the task of developing a land use plan for the province of British Columbia. The fact is, the ongoing work of government goes on. One of the comments made by the hon. Environment critic of the Liberal Party was that it's not clear. I would submit, with all respect, that it's abundantly clear. All you have to do is read the legislation that put the commission into existence, and it's abundantly clear what the task of CORE is, and what the mandate is. It makes it very, very clear, as I said before, that CORE reports publicly.
A good example is that sometimes government is criticized because of the nature of the comments Mr. Owen made following the Clayoquot announcement. I happen to look upon that as an indication that CORE is working well. The very fact that, in the spirit of openness, this government has designed a process, where so many governments in the past.... Liberal governments in Ottawa have had so many commissions they used simply to avoid making decisions, and put the report on the shelf to gather dust. In this case, it is in the legislation that CORE reports publicly. When CORE reports publicly, of course there are going to be suggestions to government. That is an indication of the health of the process, not of its weakness. I think it is functioning well. We do need to have a lively dialogue out there.
I am therefore very heartened by the effectiveness of the way in which the CORE process.... It involves a learning process. We are all at the beginning of a new era of land use planning within this province. We are dealing with a lot of issues involving a lot of controversy. That's part of the reason for having this land use process. At the end of the day, I think it's going to be very clear that it is far better that this process was created than that we carry on with the kinds of procedures that would not lead to any type of reasonable resolve.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I would suggest to the committee that CORE does have a vote -- it is called vote 3 -- if we have to get specifically into the processes of CORE; and that we try to keep these questions more under the direct administrative capacity of the minister's office.
J. Tyabji: I guess we have strayed a little bit. I'll come back to that under vote 3.
The administrative relevance of this discussion goes back to the statement with regard to committees, and to how the Environment ministry has chosen to structure the committees. I can't stress more strongly that the one thing that came out -- it was an excellent briefing, and I really appreciate the staff's time in going over everything -- was that, it seems to me, there are so many different people doing the same thing. It's the same objective, whether it be through the Ministry of Forests.... We know that the Ministry of Forests is bringing in new legislation, that they are doing their own inventory of wildlife -- I know that because I know someone who's been contracted to do that north of Prince George -- and that they have brought in something very similar to the Tin-Wis coalition recommendations, which has a lot of overlap in Environment. Each one of these priorities the government has put aside has so much overlap that I'm sure there could be a lot of streamlining and a lot of things put in place that would save the government a lot of money.
[ Page 6339 ]
More than that, it would pre-empt any frustration from the public on their participation. What I'm really concerned about is that, based on the cynicism and the general air of distrust of the public in any kind of government process, if they feel they are having input into a committee, and somewhere else other committees are working toward the same thing, but the final decision is being made independent of their recommendations by another body -- whether that be an executive body or cabinet -- that is going to make it that much more difficult to get the public to support the final decision.
We will definitely canvass this more under each separate vote, but with regard to just the administration of the Ministry of Environment, is there any tailoring? For example, I note that last year the corporate resource inventory initiative was very separate from CORE. Now we have a lot of coming together -- a lot of bringing it together -- which is very good. I have some comments about that later in terms of how you juggle that. But that kind of initiative -- to bring them together -- is a very good thing.
When I look at the rest of this, I say that there must be some room to bring some of these together and to do interministerial work. I know that there's an interministerial cabinet committee to deal with some of these issues. Is there any effort being made to at least coordinate the schedules? I know each one of these has a different schedule for the committee road show, and I don't know if there's even an attempt being made to do that to save some money.
Hon. J. Cashore: Very significant work is being done to ensure that there is careful coordination in all of these processes. Indeed, the processes underway involving CORE and various interagency work are remarkably well coordinated. It's a very significant indication of the commitment that those working within the various ministries have to making these things work well together.
I don't agree that "many people are doing their own thing." I would say that the reason for the existence of these committees is the opposite: it will enable coordination on an interagency basis involving different ministries. The very existence of these committees is the instrument that helps to avoid overlap. Because of those committees -- involving the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs -- where people are coming together, sometimes with members of the public, it becomes possible to share the issues that different aspects of those groups are working on, in the interests of coordination.
With regard to the comment about inventory, the same thing applies. These committees sit down together and there's interagency consultation to ensure that there is no overlap; to ensure that the work being done has the greatest amount of value. The corporate resource inventory initiative, as you know, hon. member, was brand-new money last year directed toward a tremendous gap in inventory. The amount budgeted last year was $10 million. During deficit containment that was cut back to $9 million. This year there was an additional $6 million added. That's $15 million of new money in two years that simply wasn't there before to address the enormous backlog in data.
This year, with regard to the corporate resource inventory initiative and the CORE process, the main focus of the initiative will be to accomplish the work of the three CORE tables. That is very significant. But the other inventory work that is going on is certainly coordinated, and I'm very pleased about the level of cooperation and coordination that exists among the various ministries.
J. Tyabji: I won't belabour the point. The minister and I don't see eye to eye on this. I don't believe that the fact that all these committees exist proves that they're working together. In fact, I think it's the opposite.
[3:30]
The last thing I'd like to say on that is that if a member of the public wants to make sure that a point is heard on a particular issue of land use, they should only have to go to one committee hearing of the provincial government. Instead, they have to attend a number of hearings, and even then they probably also have to contact their local MLA and the Minister of Environment himself.
If there are other questions on vote 32 from some of the other members, I would yield.
W. Hurd: I have a couple of further questions about the CORE process. I understand that the corporate inventory initiative provides a great deal of ongoing support and study data for the CORE process. Perhaps the minister can amplify a remark he made earlier in this discussion about the role of CORE in Clayoquot Sound. The perception exists that the CORE process was escalated to a great extent in issuing a report that suggested a monitoring function for certain land use activities in Clayoquot Sound. I'd like some comment from the minister as to whether he sees the kind of role described by Mr. Owen in Clayoquot Sound as something that the CORE process would be involved in during the coming year -- or however long its mandate exists in the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: What I said before was that I thought the fact that the commissioner gave a response following the announcement was an indication that the CORE process is working well, and I reiterate that at this time. Government has not yet responded to some of the specifics that Mr. Owen made in his recommendations. I will not be responding during this debate to Mr. Owen's communication; we will be responding as government to Mr. Owen directly.
W. Hurd: I'm just trying to follow up some of the concerns expressed by the official opposition Environment critic. Does the minister have any feeling about the commissioner's requirement to insert the CORE process into a land use issue that was specifically exempted from consideration by CORE in the early going. Is he concerned that the involvement of CORE -- coming forward after the fact with a major change of philosophy or emphasis for this process -- reflects in
[ Page 6340 ]
any way a lack of confidence that some people might be feeling about what role this environmental land use process has in the province? Is he concerned that this is the type of thing we can anticipate in other land use disputes in the province, or in other issues? As the minister quite correctly points out, issues are decided on an ongoing basis by the various ministries, but that can arouse a great deal of public controversy about the decisions. Is he anticipating that CORE will have to become involved in a sort of de facto way with other issues in the province -- the protected-areas strategy, for example, or spotted owl recovery areas, or other issues that might become controversial along the same vein as Clayoquot Sound?
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, with regard to the last point, CORE is involved with the protected-areas strategy. It's part of the policy framework within which we work. So that's part of the value of the way CORE is structured. With regard to the question of confidence, I can only reiterate that the health of the process the government has devised is evident in the fact that CORE did respond, and that inspires confidence for me. I cannot predict the future. Those government decisions that CORE will respond to in various ways.... I mean, that remains to be seen. But the very fact that we've created a process which enables that to happen is obviously an indication of a government process that is appropriate and open to decisions being considered in full public scrutiny, which I would say was heretofore almost unheard of. I can't think of very many examples of past governments of any stripe that have designed a commission in the way that the CORE commission has been designed, where its reports are made public, and where government decisions would be made in the light of public dialogue resulting from the reports of CORE at the various steps along the way. Ultimately, given that we are dealing with a number of issues that are very, very challenging, I think it's an indication there is a very creative relationship between the government and CORE that is serving, and will serve, the land use future of this province extremely well.
W. Hurd: I certainly respect the wishes of the minister not to respond directly to the recommendations on Clayoquot Sound by the commissioner. However, from a general policy standpoint, can we anticipate that under the CORE process in this province there might be a monitoring function for this particular body? Something that I think created a great deal of controversy among the industry representatives in the process was the suggestion by the commissioner that, in some way, the commission should be involved in the role of policeman in monitoring the various land use activities. Is that something we can envisage from CORE in the future, or is the minister convinced that is beyond the legislative mandate of this particular body? Having reviewed the legislation that set up CORE, to me there appeared to be no section of that act which governed the role of an environmental policeman, or the environmental monitoring of logging or fish stream activity, biodiversity or any of the other issues that come up. Those were specifically designated as being responsibilities of line ministries. Given the CORE commission recommendations on Clayoquot, and looking at other areas they may be involved in -- or may not be involved in, I guess, is more correct -- are we going to see a potential situation where CORE will want to be involved as an environmental policeman, if I can use the term?
The Chair: I'm going to caution again on delving very deeply into CORE. It's my understanding that the Attorney General will be taking the lead on vote 3. Insofar as we're really getting into some of the heart of CORE here, it becomes a difficult proposition under standing order 61. I would just caution the minister about that before he answers.
C. Serwa: On the topic of conversation just brought up, CORE is the child of a number of commissions and task forces that work partially with the Ministry of Forests and partially with the Ministry of Environment. The general questions we're asking about the CORE process are exceedingly important to be asked in this opportunity, when we're discussing estimates with the Minister of Environment. We will only get partial answers when we approach CORE, very narrow and specific answers with respect to the commission's activities. Here we can ask the minister about the general areas of concern with respect to the areas under the minister's purview. I would request some discretion and latitude on the Chair's part, and an awareness of the responsibility by the Minister of Environment to use this opportunity effectively to expand on the CORE process. It is a very significant and most important process, not only in the course of these estimates, but surely for the people of British Columbia.
The Chair: The Chair has shown quite a bit of latitude, I think, as I've tested the committee here. The minister mentioned CORE in his opening remarks, and from that point I'll leave.... If the minister would like to respond to these as they touch his office, I think that's completely appropriate at this time. The questioning has been somewhat difficult for the Chair in that it is tied very tightly to the minister's office. But I felt the Chair should caution the committee in general that vote 3 will be examined. At the discretion of the minister and the hon. critics, we'll just carry on and have a productive afternoon.
Hon. J. Cashore: I will respond to a question that was asked. I will endeavour, hon. Chair, to confine my remarks to these questions insofar as they relate to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
First of all, with regard to the issue that was raised earlier about the various committees and the question of overlap, I will point out, for instance, in the Fraser basin management program, which I have some responsibility for in my ministry, that CORE is represented on the board by Mr. Stephen Owen. There is a direct liaison between that program and interagency provincial committees on land use. Also, first nations are well represented on the Fraser Basin Management Board.
With regard to the point that was raised a moment ago -- further questions on CORE and the question about the monitoring function -- I will respond by
[ Page 6341 ]
saying that I would be quite happy to relay some of the points the hon. member made to my colleagues, as government is preparing a response to Mr. Owen's recommendations.
W. Hurd: I note from the excellent briefing provided by ministry staff that $6.34 million -- or 40 FTEs -- is devoted to the corporate inventory initiative. According to that briefing, the priorities are set by the Commission on Resources and Environment. In light of the concern and the determination by CORE to escalate its activities, I wonder where the money might come from in the Environment ministry to allow CORE to take a broader role not only in dealing with land use disputes and in arriving at and recommending its solutions, but in taking on an additional function after the dispute has been resolved -- to monitor whether the agreements or the stewardship standards are being maintained. Are we going to see funding under the corporate inventory intiative, or is Mr. Owen whistling past the graveyard in terms of there being any money available for his commission to expand its role?
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps the hon. member didn't hear me say a little earlier that the bulk of the corporate resource inventory initiative is being directed toward the work of the three CORE tables. Therefore everything that is happening is consistent with the point that the hon. member made. Let's make it very clear: this is the decision of government. This fulfils government's purpose; this is in support of what government plans to do. This is recognition by government that there must be inventory support to enable the CORE tables and the CORE processes in those regions to fulfil their work in the interests of what the government is requesting.
W. Hurd: That answer confuses me because, in reviewing the legislation that set up CORE, I can't find any reference to monitoring environmental performance, which seems to be a recommendation with respect to Clayoquot Sound. Those reviewing this set of estimates would take great comfort in having some direction provided by the minister for the three ongoing CORE tables, when a consensus is reached and the recommendation is made....
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Point of order. The hon. member suggested that I made some reference to monitoring environmental performance. Such words did not escape my lips; those are his words. My last answer had nothing to do with that phrase.
W. Hurd: Far be it from me to put words about CORE into the minister's mouth. Obviously Mr. Owen's participation in the Clayoquot Sound press conference meant that words were put into his mouth, to his infinite regret.
Perhaps I can revisit this issue of the three CORE tables and find out whether or not the minister anticipates that any recommendations will be made about a post-CORE process that might involve some role in monitoring environmental performance in the areas that are under consideration.
Hon. J. Cashore: The government will be responding to the communication we received from Mr. Owen.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, for the information of the committee I would just like to point out that during the Attorney General estimates when I tried to canvass CORE, I was referred to the Minister of Environment. I went through this last year when I was trying to get some kind of information on spending for research and development for the environment, and I was referred to estimate after estimate, to the point where there was finally nobody left to ask. So with regard to the CORE committee, there is a lot of overlap and the Minister of Environment should be aware that the buck was passed here. So to the extent that there is overlap, that's what we would like to canvass.
Getting back to the earlier line of questioning, where we were talking about the committees, the issues and the land use strategy for environment, the minister suggested that I read the legislation. Well, as the minister will remember, not only did I read it, but I managed to get an amendment passed to that legislation through the Attorney General. So I'm familiar with it; I know it's there; and I also know, because the minister brought it up, that with regard to the issue of Clayoquot Sound, that was not referred to CORE. Yet we have an interesting situation, because I will agree very strongly with the minister that the public reporting process is excellent -- no question. In fact, in terms of the way CORE was set up, the structure is very sound. The mandate I have a problem with, as I said during the debate. In terms of the general concept the mandate is good, but there were so many specifics that were bypassing the structure of CORE that these were weakening it from day one. The parks plan strategy, the protected-areas strategy, the foreshore lease sales and the aboriginal land issue are just a few things that should be within the general mandate of CORE -- and I've mentioned them before.
The minister brought up Clayoquot Sound, and Clayoquot Sound, of course, falls under the responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment. But Clayoquot Sound wasn't referred to CORE. Yet we had a public reporting process of the commissioner for CORE, and the interesting thing, I think, was that the commissioner tied the decision on Clayoquot Sound to the continuation of the CORE process and the credibility of that kind of structure.
I think the Minister of Environment should perhaps give us some indication as to which environmental issues we can expect that kind of reaction on in the future. If we review the debates, a year ago I stood here and said: "Here are things that are being exempted from CORE. If CORE is to fulfil it's mandate, they have to be in CORE." That wasn't done. Now we have CORE trying to continue, and yet we have environmental issues outside of CORE being used in terms of implications for the future operation of CORE. So that's something I have a real problem with in terms of public confidence in the process. Since this government seems to be tying the credibility of the land use strategy to CORE, and CORE is saying that these things that are
[ Page 6342 ]
exempted from the mandate are reducing their ability to report publicly on that land use strategy, how can we have a reconciliation of that?
This was a problem from day one, this was a problem when these decisions were being made, and I know the minister will say that the operations of government have to continue; but over a year ago the minister had the option of referring things to CORE -- like Clayoquot Sound -- and chose not to. So I don't know how we resolve that. And I certainly don't think this can leave one with much confidence in the structure of CORE, when the process can be blindsided by something that was originally exempted and should have been included from the beginning.
Hon. J. Cashore: CORE has never said that its ability to offer land use advice is being compromised. That simply is not being stated, and I would caution the member not to impute such comments to CORE. At the very least, I would encourage the hon. member to communicate with Mr. Owen with regard to making such a statement, because I believe that Mr. Owen is being very careful in his comments and has not made any such comment.
I would point out to the hon. member that the CORE process is certainly a land use planning process which the government is extremely proud of. The way in which the legislation was presented made it very clear that the existence of CORE does not preclude the responsibility of government to do its ongoing work, which is very often to make decisions. So while CORE exists, government will continue to make decisions, and many of the decisions will be land use decisions. That is part of the ongoing responsibility of government.
Hon. member, you have referred to foreshore leases, and I think the proper term is shore land sales. The government does not sell foreshore as such.
J. Tyabji: As the minister pointed out earlier, we'll be getting to that issue in the Lands and Parks areas. So I won't bite on the provocation there, although it's tempting to get into that debate right now.
I understand that the minister is trying to say that government has to continue to operate. But how does the Minister of Environment feel the CORE process can have a lot of strength and credibility? My own reading of the statement that came out of CORE was that, whether stated or not, there was no question that the entire issue of the future credibility of the CORE process was going to hinge on the government's response to that document. The government might want to distinguish a little more clearly as to where the ownership is for the land use strategy. If everything is put into the CORE basket, after the government responds to Mr. Owen's missive in response to the Clayoquot Sound decision, there could be serious trouble for the future of a land use strategy with any clout or credibility. That's one thing.
My reading of it is that there is no question, based on the response of the environmental stakeholders at the CORE table and based on Mr. Owen's missive with regard to the government's decision on Clayoquot Sound, that there could be some serious problems for this government if everything relies on the CORE process. How does this minister reconcile the government's decisions on things like the protected-areas strategy and the parks plan with CORE? Is the parks plan strategy -- with the 18 percent that is now being frozen, with a potential for 6 percent of that to come out -- going to be referred to CORE to be integrated with the land use strategy that they're developing? If so, how is that going to be done -- on a regional basis or on a provincewide basis? To what extent are current government decisions being coordinated with what CORE is trying to do region by region?
Hon. J. Cashore: The protected-areas strategy is part of the CORE process and is interconnected with it. It is dovetailed with the CORE process, and it is a topic at those regional CORE tables.
With regard to the remainder of the province, the CORE process will have input into the way in which the protected-areas strategy is developing. Again, that will be part of the process.
I just want to point out for the record that Mr. Owen never said that the Clayoquot decision should have gone to court.
J. Tyabji: No, I did.
Hon. J. Cashore: Oh, you said that. Okay.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, he did say that government had every right to make the decision.
J. Tyabji: My point was that last year -- in fact, the caucus has been pushing this for some time -- we said that we were going to run into problems if critical land use decisions were exempt from CORE. We can look it up in Hansard. No, I wasn't attributing that to Mr. Owen; that was from us.
With regard to the parkland strategy dovetailing in, that's commendable. I'm not sure how that's happening. For example, I believe Mr. Owen didn't have any input into the original green dotting of the map of the province. To what extent are they having input or being advised, as an independent group who are consulting?
Hon. J. Cashore: Government makes the protected-areas strategy decision, but on the advice of CORE in CORE regions.
J. Tyabji: Only three CORE committees are in place right now. Where is government receiving direction from CORE in the regions where committees do not exist?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the non-CORE regions the process is run by the assistant deputy ministers' committee, but there is CORE representation in that process. In the three regions, the protected-areas strategy process has direct input into CORE. In the non-CORE regions the assistant deputy ministers' committee provides that committee process, and CORE has input into that committee.
J. Tyabji: So am I to understand that when the minister says CORE has input into that committee, he's
[ Page 6343 ]
talking about the nine main associates of CORE rather than any regional representatives of CORE? I'm assuming there are no regional representatives of CORE for the areas where there are no committees.
Hon. J. Cashore: It is the CORE staff in the non-CORE areas.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister be more specific? When you say CORE staff...? I'm just trying to figure out how it works. If it's not possible to get an in-depth understanding of how this works, maybe I could get a briefing note from the staff. I'm trying to establish, for example, who is driving the land use strategy with the protected-areas strategy. I know the original protected-areas strategy obviously wasn't driven by CORE, because it came out around the same time CORE was struck. I can't remember which came first -- the chicken or the egg. But now that it's on the map and you have CORE processes underway, to what extent is the original map -- which was not brought up by CORE -- in charge? Could I have a briefing note on that?
[4:00]
Then more specifically, what is the dynamic with the existing regional committees? To what extent is the parks plan advising them? To what extent is there a dialogue? If there is a dialogue, is there public involvement, or does the public involvement come at the committee level and then get reported to the parks plan?
Hon. J. Cashore: On the question of who is driving the land use strategy in the non-CORE regions, the fact is that the government -- through the assistant deputy minister's committee -- is in charge of that process. Many different processes and committees feed into that. We will get you a briefing note on that.
J. Tyabji: Are there opportunities for CORE to have regional representation into the assistant deputy minister's office? I know there were the three short-term priorities for CORE, but my understanding was that when CORE was originally struck, the objective was to have all of these regional committees working not on a specific issue like the Tatshenshini or Windy Craggy, but on local community problems. If that's the case, are these committees coming together in the regions? Do we have a Peace River committee, for example, that's coming together with local stakeholders just to develop a general regional land use plan? And if they are, are they able to have input into the parks plan strategy? The reason that's important, in my view, is that regionally based committees would probably have a better idea of what should be on that map. And if they are not in existence, are they coming about? Do they have an opportunity to report, or how is that working? Or will it be finished by the time they come together?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, we don't have such a structure in place at the present time. We are working with various stakeholders and public interest groups to develop that process, but we don't have in place the process the member has outlined.
J. Tyabji: So when the minister says, "We are working with local stakeholders," I'm assuming he means the assistant deputy minister's office is working with the local stakeholders. If that's the case, am I to understand the assistant deputy minister's office is acting in the capacity of a regional CORE committee in the absence of that committee being in place? The reason I am belabouring this point is that whether it be in Peace River, the Prince Rupert area or the Okanagan, we know that there is an existing parks plan map, and that the CORE process is supposed to represent regional stakeholders who come together to drive forward a land use strategy process. If, for example, we had such a group in the Okanagan, in Peace River or the Prince Rupert area, and they wanted to make recommendations to the CORE process or to the assistant deputy minister's office -- either one -- to drive the greening of the province, if you will, on which places should be put aside and why.... Those are the groups -- the wildlife conservation groups, hunters' associations, environmental groups, or whatever it is -- who usually have a good knowledge of what should be put aside locally.
Where do they go in the absence of a regional committee? If it is to the assistant deputy minister's office, how do they know that's what they do? And if it's not, can they report directly to Steven Owen? I'm asking because I get these questions fairly often, where people are feeling a little bit of frustration. They have a lot of faith in CORE, but they are not sure how they can push forward a local idea for land use strategy that would definitely be included in the Parks Plan.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the member will be helped when we make that briefing note available. I will point out that it's not the assistant deputy minister's office; it's the assistant deputy minister's committee responsible for the protected-areas strategy. Each region has committees, but they are not CORE committees. In deploying resources, we recognize that we had to start to focus on those three regions. We have done so in the other areas. We have set up processes that are served by the assistant deputy minister's committee which are in the spirit of CORE and are inclusive. When you get these questions from people who are out there, I would certainly encourage you to feel free to refer those questions to our staff. A lot of these questions do involve other ministries as well, and I'll leave it at that.
J. Tyabji: Could I also request of the minister and his staff that when the briefing note comes -- going back to the whole idea of the structure, the committees and all the different jurisdictions of the Ministry of Environment -- there could also be some kind of structural tree in place? For example, here's a protected-areas strategy, here are the committees. If there are assistant deputy minister committees for the protected-areas strategy, could we see that somewhere on paper? It would be helpful to at least diagram the ministry, and maybe even do it by region, so that we know what is in existence. I'm certainly happy to assist the minister in referring people to these groups who have these interests in talking to him.
[ Page 6344 ]
I'm not sure if this is the jurisdiction of Environment, because I know that the number two government priority outlined in the budget highlights is the CORE planning process. Under that we've got regional offices -- which I would assume are hopefully cross-referencing with other ministries -- where we have waste management, fish and wildlife, and planning, to take place in the CORE planning process. This was through the briefing that we received from the staff. Maybe I wasn't clear during the briefing. I'm trying to understand the mandate of regional offices: are those the Environment regional offices, or does CORE have regional offices? How does that map out? Maybe that would be in the briefing note as well.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the protected-areas strategy assistant deputy minister's committee, yes, hon. member, we will get you a flow chart -- some kind of tree that will clarify those connections. Starting at the level of the regional-protected area team, that's a multi-agency committee that reports to the interagency management committee -- which is again multi-agency -- and they report to the assistant deputy minister's committee. That will be spelled out on that flow chart that we will get to you.
You were mentioning waste management, fish and wildlife, and planning, and you were talking about the regional offices vis-�-vis CORE. CORE does not have regional offices as such.
J. Tyabji: While we're on the subject of the flow charts and the structures, it would be very useful to have the number of FTEs per committee outlined -- or whether it's volunteer -- just to help a little with the understanding of this so that we don't have to hash it out back and forth through the estimates. It would be very useful if we could have a breakdown of the salaries or costs for the committees.
I want to talk about number three in the government priorities: aboriginal issues.
C. Serwa: I've got some on CORE.
J. Tyabji: Okay. I will yield to the member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions. Mine have to do with funding the independent -- or the new -- money that came to the CORE process. I can't help using the opportunity to enlighten the minister on something that all British Columbians are becoming more and more aware of. The minister brought the subject into the conversation by using such words as "serious financial or fiscal situation," and the beautiful "deficit containment." I can't help but remind the minister that his government took what was a forecast deficit estimate in the year ending March 31, 1992, and ballooned it from $1.4 billion to $2.4 billion -- the largest deficit in British Columbia's history.
The Chair: Order. It's clearly not under the administrative capacity of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. That's under the office of the Finance minister.
C. Serwa: I'm well aware of it, but I had to make these leading remarks to ask the specific question that I'm going to be asking. They did balloon it so that in 1993-94 it will expand to slightly over $3 billion. Recognizing that, and recognizing the peculiar deficit containment procedures, I would like to know -- with respect to the ministry, and then the question on the CORE funding -- why the ministry appears to have provided the funding for the CORE operation. The Ministry of Environment has a reduced budget allotment allocation this year -- a fairly significant one to a very important ministry. On the other hand, a sister ministry that is closely related to the CORE process -- the Ministry of Forests -- has an enhanced budget. Perhaps the minister could explain why the Ministry of Environment took the hit for CORE.
Hon. J. Cashore: In fairness, with regard to the balloon factor, I find it absolutely incredible that this hon. member, who was a member of the former government and had such a role in getting us into this problem of the enormous fiscal responsibilities with the kind of jiggery-pokery that went on, would now be standing there in all his righteousness and trying to make out that this government, which is trying to do some kind of containment based on the enormous problem that exists in the province's books.... That this member would make that point in this debate is absolutely incredible.
To get onto the questions about CORE funding, my understanding is that CORE is funded under a separate vote. It is not funded under this vote. That is why the Attorney General will be in the estimates debate on the funding of CORE. We do support, through our ongoing ministry budget, services that result from our ADMs and others interacting with CORE procedures. There are costs related to CORE in terms of our ongoing budgeting process, but the CORE budget, as I understand it, comes out of a different vote.
C. Serwa: I won't continue that interesting discussion on deficit and debt. We'll use that opportunity with the Minister of Finance's estimates.
Could the minister advise me of the estimate of support costs for CORE that the Ministry of Environment will be responsible for?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would ask the hon. member to cast his memory back to the days when he was the Minister of Environment and to ask himself how he would have answered such a question. I think his answer would have been that it is simply impossible to quantify. I see him nodding his head. Obviously, as government in its wisdom develops new procedures, that's going to become part of the modus operandi, part of the working involvement. There is a cost in that. Sometimes it's a cost in terms of dollars; sometimes it's a cost in terms making adjustments to priorities and to where time is spent.
C. Serwa: The CORE process and the credibility of the commissioner were compromised -- perhaps terminally -- when the Premier took the commissioner on the Clayoquot Sound announcement. There's a great
[ Page 6345 ]
deal of concern about that and with the necessity of seeing the commissioner and the work of CORE as truly independent of government. As for the expressed concern with the reporting procedure of CORE -- I was pleased to hear the minister indicate that it would be made public -- when will it be made public? For example, will it be first vetted through cabinet, and then an edited version be made public? Or will the report be made to the Legislature at the same time that the report is submitted to cabinet? Again, the reason for asking the question is with regard to the credibility and objectivity of the work that goes into the report.
[4:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: The question of credibility with regard to items being vetted through cabinet is also a topic that this hon. member is very familiar with, being a former member of a Social Credit government which left countless reports sitting on shelves and gathering dust. I've made it very clear that all the member has to do is look at the legislation and see what it says. It says that when the commissioner files a report, that report is public. I don't know what more I can say about that. As a former member of government, I think he realizes that it's often very helpful to consider what is in such a report, so that you have an opportunity to give a cogent and wise response. I think that's appropriate within public policy.
The real message here that indicates the health of CORE, the confidence of the government and the appropriateness of creating this instrument is that it was designed in that way. I would really expect to hear this hon. member say that he recognizes, given his awareness of previous Social Credit procedures, that this is exemplary. It's setting new ground and it is certainly good news for public policy in that it is subject to the light of public scrutiny. Therefore his pessimistic interpretation, which says that the announcement indicated a compromise, is certainly inappropriate in light of the fact that Mr. Owen was there making a statement on his own behalf indicating that the government had every right to make its decision. So in the health of that openness, the process continues.
C. Serwa: I'm less concerned about the confidence of government in the CORE process, but I'm really concerned about the confidence of the people in the CORE process. My remarks were meant to make the minister aware of the fact that the public as a whole sees that as a compromise on the commissioner's work and the CORE process.
The reality is that there have been a number of processes, and the work of an independent commissioner, such as the conflict-of-interest commissioner, became public. It wasn't preceded by cabinet, to the best of my knowledge. What I want the minister to do is commit to making the report public simultaneously with the receipt by cabinet of that report. And if the Minister of Environment is not confident in the commissioner, then let him say so now. If he's not confident in the objectivity and the fairness and the balance of the commissioner's work and the commission, let him say so now.
The fact remains that if the report is not made public, without any qualifications, then indeed the report will be suspect. And if the report is suspect, so will be the work of the commission. Regrettably, this will mean the loss of credibility of the whole CORE process. Again, we will all lose in that.
Hon. J. Cashore: I've said in this room several times this afternoon that the report will be made public. It will be made public consistent with the commitment that we made in the tabling and the passing of the legislation. The hon. member has had the opportunity to participate in debates and discussions around that. I don't know what he's trying to achieve by revisiting this so many times, but the fact is that it will be made public. I've said that over and over again.
C. Serwa: The concern is not that it will be made public. The concern is what will in fact be made public.
Hon. J. Cashore: But that's in the report.
C. Serwa: I appreciate that. My concern is that when it's vetted through cabinet prior to public release.... Will the public see the original report -- an unedited version of the original report?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered this question several times this afternoon. The report will be made public when the commissioner wants it made public. I'm not quite sure what the hon. member is trying to gain by this line of questioning. I'm sure he will spend another half an hour when the Attorney General responds to these same questions, but I have said it again and again and again, and I would think that members of both opposition parties would like to get on to some issues that haven't been dealt with yet.
C. Serwa: It's always interesting when a minister of the Crown filibusters his own estimates. I've asked him a straightforward, simple question. Will the release of the report to the public be made simultaneously with the document being presented to cabinet? There is no hidden agenda in that, just a simple, straightforward question. Dependent on the answer to this question will be the credibility of the CORE process. If the government is so insecure with respect to the fairness and balance of the commissioner that they're unwilling to make that a public release, rather than having it vetted through cabinet, then I'm certain that the CORE process will in fact fail, and it must not fail.
Hon. J. Cashore: If the member goes back in the Blues, I've answered this question. Early in the debate, in the response to the Liberal critic, I said that the report of the commissioner is such that the government has to respond in the light of public scrutiny. So when the government responds, it's in the light of the public scrutiny of the report of the commissioner. I have said that it will be made public when the commissioner wants it made public. I have said it will be made public. Now this hon. member can continue this line of questioning, but I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve.
[ Page 6346 ]
C. Serwa: I think that the minister has in fact answered the question. It will be vetted through cabinet and if cabinet approves of the report, then the public will have the opportunity to see it. But the public does not have the opportunity to see the report as it is presented to cabinet....
Hon. J. Cashore: Point of order. Hon. Chair, this is really inappropriate. The hon. member is seeking to put words in my mouth. He's trying to make some sort of political hay out of this when there's no political hay to be made; therefore he is trying to create a statement by me. I have said over and over again that the report will be made public, that cabinet will be judged in the light of that being a public report, that it will be made public when the commissioner wants it made public, and that it will be made public consistent with the legislation. It goes without saying that, at the end of the day, the public will judge government on the basis of how it follows through on its commitment to make it public. So why is this hon. member trying to turn something that's recognized...? The Liberal Environment critic stated in this chamber that this is one of the aspects of the CORE legislation that she affirms.
The Chair: Hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on the point of order.
W. Hurd: I think the minister and the committee would appreciate the direction of the Chair as to whether or not the minister is in fact raising a point of order, or responding in mid-sentence to a question posed by the hon. member for Okanagan West.
The Chair: It would appear that the minister took exception to something that the member for Okanagan West had said. I would accept from the member for Okanagan West that he did not intend to put words in the minister's mouth; and I accept that the minister was somewhat taken aback by that. I also accept that we've extensively examined this particular question, and I would ask that the committee move on to another question, please.
C. Serwa: Thanks for your advice, hon. Chair, but let it be stated for the record that the minister was either unwilling or incapable of answering the question.
The Chair: Do you have another question, please, hon. member?
C. Serwa: This is a fairly serious and sensitive issue in the course of the estimates that the minister wishes to filibuster or dance around. It was simply a straight-forward question about the timing of the report being made public -- no hidden agenda, but a question that ensures that the confidence of the public is involved in this process. If the minister is willing to compromise that confidence of the public in the CORE process, so be it.
W. Hurd: Just a further question about the funding for CORE, and perhaps the minister can enlighten me as to whether this falls within the purview of his ministry. My understanding when the CORE process was originally set up was that there would be funding available for some non-profit groups that wished to participate at the various tables. I am thinking specifically of groups like the Outdoor Recreation Council. Can the minister advise us whether there is any funding within his ministry to support the involvement of non-profit groups that might experience a real disadvantage in participating at the CORE tables without any government support in the form of grants?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question to be put to the Attorney General with regard to the CORE budget, as the participant funding is a function of that vote.
W. Hurd: I have a series of questions on the protected-areas strategy, which was dealt with by the critic to some extent. My understanding is that the decision-making process with respect to the protected-areas strategy -- which areas will be retained as part of the 12 percent parks and wilderness areas, and which may be taken out -- will be made over a time frame of approximately five years. Is that the time frame we were originally dealing with, with the ministry's mandate to deal with those land use decisions?
Hon. J. Cashore: The commitment was to complete the protected-areas strategy -- which was to double the protected areas from 6 percent to 12 percent of the land base -- by the year 2000. It's a political reality that, as part of its mandate to indicate its commitment to that process, government recognizes that a significant amount of that will need to be accomplished during this term in government.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise us whether his ministry has established any priorities in terms of which areas are going to be dealt with? Some areas have relatively high timber values, for which some sort of direction from the ministry would be appreciated before the year 2000. I'm thinking specifically of areas in the Cariboo. Has a policy decision been made as to what type of values will be weighted, in terms of this schedule until the year 2000 -- particularly given the effect some of these protected-area designations are having on planning for timber supply in some of the timber supply areas in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think if the hon. member would refer to the original map released at the time of announcing the protected-areas strategy -- there were categories one, two, three and four -- that would answer the questions about priority and timing. A forthcoming further policy announcement on the protected-areas strategy will address that issue, which I will not comment on at the present time. Clearly government is putting time lines out there -- against which we will be measured -- recognizing that, if we leave everything until the year 2000, that simply isn't going to deliver on our commitment. So we're very cognizant of that. In all candour, we're discovering as we go along, with the many consultations that need to be carried out, that it's very challenging to try to maintain those timetables. So we're learning. It's been a learning process as we go along. I think it's been a very worthwhile process.
[4:30]
[ Page 6347 ]
I do recognize the point the hon. member makes, that while we are completing the process there's the argument about "talk and log". We understand that is a concern. There's also the concern about stability -- for, say, the mining industry trying to have a sense of stability with regard to filing claims. All these are the kinds of challenges we face in trying to make a transition toward something much more appropriate with regard to the land. But I think we are making real headway with this. I'm a great believer that we don't make good decisions in a panic. We need to be able to make well-reasoned, incremental decisions, recognizing the urgency, but trying as much as possible to do so in a context that enables reason to prevail.
W. Hurd: I understand the ministry is making a financial commitment towards the concept of integrated resource management. In light of the rather draconian impact that some of the protected areas are having on timber supply planning, for example, can the minister tell us whether he has any ministry staff or funds available to coordinate or dovetail the work on the protected-areas strategy with the timber inventory initiative being conducted by the Ministry of Forests, and the cut reductions by the chief forester? Are these two events occurring in splendid isolation from each other, or are we dealing with a coordinated plan? The opposition has heard great concern expressed by both environmentalists and loggers about the relationship between these two processes, and whether or not the chief forester, in setting annual allowable cuts, is factoring in the impact of these protected-areas strategies in the land base, and about the need to reduce incremental harvesting in areas surrounding those protected areas to compensate, if they are going to be taken out of the land base permanently.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the member has stated the challenge well. The assistant deputy minister's committee I referred to earlier with regard to the protected-areas strategy is co-chaired by a representative from the Ministry of Forests. There definitely is an effort to have integration and coordination with regard to inventory activities, and to activities relating to the ramifications of the reductions in the annual allowable cut that are made by the chief forester, and so forth.
We are going through a tremendous transition in this province at the present time. We are trying to make the transition that -- through inventory, planning and standards -- leads to sustainability for the future. I think that the processes in place are designed to serve that as well as can possibly be the case.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware, however, that the protected-areas strategy is having a deleterious effect in some timber supply areas in British Columbia, or in some areas compared to others.
That leads me back to my original question as to whether any priority has been established in determining the suitability or the long-term viability of these protected areas in situations where they are clearly having a direct impact on resource planning. Are the annual allowable harvests being set by the chief forester directly factoring in the protected-areas strategies? Are any funds being made available by the Ministry of Environment to support that work? In our discussions with the Minister of Forests in his estimates, it was clearly the case that there were no funds available from the Ministry of Forests to measure the impact of these protected-areas strategies. They had enough trouble just determining how many trees there were in a timber supply area, and what the long-term harvest should be.
When we're dealing with the protected-areas strategy, which is an initiative from the Ministry of Environment, has the ministry identified areas in the province where, because of the volume of hectares that are under protection, there is an incremental concern to Forestry? Should they therefore be put at the head of the list in trying to promote community economic stability, beyond any other consideration?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is part of the ongoing interagency work that takes place within government. I think the hon. member is aware -- as I was saying earlier in response to the hon. member's colleague, the Environment critic -- that the fact that interagency work takes place is an indication that every effort is being made to coordinate and to avoid duplication.
With regard to the specific question about those areas in the protected-areas strategy that are most vulnerable, in a sense -- in terms of areas that could be compromised through industrial activity or areas where, because of the uncertainty, industrial activity is finding that very difficult -- that acknowledgedly difficult issue is being addressed through that process. It is being addressed by clearly looking at priorities, evaluating them and trying to decide on the wisest and most appropriate way to administer this process.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask about specifics then: the Cariboo and the Fraser timber supply area, Chilliwack through to Squamish and Lillooet -- where the protected-areas strategy, coupled with other initiatives of the Ministry of Environment, are having a serious impact on the planning process for resource extraction; in this case, timber extraction. Can the minister assure the committee that in this interagency work, these serious, area-specific problems are going to the head of the list for consideration? Clearly the protected-areas strategy is having a differing impact in the various areas of the province. So my question is a pretty simple one in terms of priorities: will the areas where the protected-areas strategy is having a disproportionate impact receive the commitment and the resources of this ministry to resolve that as soon as possible?
Hon. J. Cashore: Area-specific problems have very high consideration and are being taken very seriously. I don't wish to suggest, in any way, that problems are suddenly going to go away because we have embarked on a process that is going to be achieving a much better stability for the province in the context of sustainability. Certainly the most severe issues require a great deal of attention and care, and that is the case.
W. Hurd: I'm not sure that that's an answer. My concern is that we've seen an across-the-board
[ Page 6348 ]
reduction in the minister's budget -- albeit not a large reduction; a reduction nevertheless. Clearly there are areas of the province that require a major commitment, if only because people's lives and their livelihoods are at stake; community stability is at stake. In areas where the protected-areas strategy is having a direct impact on people's very confidence in the future of their industry, their town, their livelihood and their way of life, where the protected-areas strategy is a key component in community survival, one hopes that the minister will assure the committee that the ministry is declaring those a top priority, given the reducing budget that it has to deal with.
Hon. J. Cashore: It is not the protected-areas strategy that has caused the problem. The protected-areas strategy is a process that has been put in place to help us as a body politic -- as a province, as a people -- to deal with the problem. The problem that we are experiencing has resulted from overharvesting and inappropriate practices -- what we might call sympathetic administration from the former Social Credit government. All of a sudden there's a time of waking up and saying we've got to do something about this. That's something that the public has recognized. Obviously it's not the protected-areas strategy that has created the problem. In dealing with the problem that has been created by the circumstances that bring us to this point in history, it is true that we have to put in place a process that enables us to make some of these key decisions as quickly and as appropriately as possible. We certainly welcome suggestions as to how that process can be enhanced. I can assure you that those kinds of suggestions will be taken seriously in this debate.
The hon. member mentions the fact that there has been a cut in the ministry budget. If you look at this ministry over two years, given the incredible fiscal problems that have been visited upon this government by Socred mismanagement, you will see that we have done very well in holding the line with regard to the important programs. We've done some excellent work to ensure that we are able to maintain programs that require that support as much as possible, while recognizing our corporate responsibility within government to cut the deficit.
I know that members of the opposition parties haven't been yelling and screaming that we should be going the route of spend, spend, spend in this area. I know that they are in a really awkward spot, when it comes to the way in which they want to craft their response on this issue. Clearly with regard to the work going into the protected-areas strategy and land use planning, the financial and personnel resources there recognize that that is a priority with this government.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
W. Hurd: The opposition appreciates the fact that the Environment ministry is one of the few ministries of government that generate revenues for the Crown in excess of what the ministry actually spends. We know that the Ministry of Finance always makes the outstanding decisions on behalf of the people of the province. But it's troubling that the Minister of Environment accepts a reduction in his budget of a not-insignificant amount, when his ministry is a generator of revenue for the Ministry of Finance.
Leaving that aside, Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the issue of the protected-areas strategy as it affects the two areas I talked about originally. The minister must be aware that while the protected-areas strategy is not the major reason that some of these areas are experiencing real trauma in their future lifestyle and livelihood, it is in fact a contributor. In the case of the Fraser timber supply area and the Cariboo, the net effect of all the takeaways from the land base -- including the protected-areas strategy, the wildlife study areas and the inventory reduction -- is to reduce the land base for timber harvesting, for example, by upwards of 40 percent.
I think the people in those communities who are facing the virtual halving of the land base available to their livelihood would appreciate some direction from the Ministry of Environment that, because the effect of all these initiatives is creating such uncertainty in their communities, they would be the top priority of the ministry when it comes to deciding whether these areas should be placed in wilderness preserves or parks or, after assessing the various values, whether they should be placed back in the land base to sustain community economies. I really haven't received an answer or an idea from the minister as to whether the livelihood and the economic stability of towns in this province will in any way affect the priorities of his ministry in dealing with these protected-areas strategies.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the fact that the Cariboo -- the area the hon. member referred to -- is the subject of a regional CORE process is an indication of a priority. It's an area that government has recognized needs to be addressed with urgency. The fact that it was one of the areas targeted at the time of the initial CORE announcement is an indication of that.
[4:45]
That's not to take away from the point the hon. member is making. I think he makes a valid point with regard to the fact that for the people in the area whose lives depend on the resource, this is an extremely difficult situation. I recognize that. I would agree when he says that the protected-areas strategy is not a cause; I would not agree that it's a contributor. I would say that it is a necessary step in order to achieve the kind of stability that we all want to achieve. It's a necessary step, and I think it's unfortunate that sometimes that necessary step is seen as a contributor. It is designed to help bring about the kind of result that will be best for the province, and especially for the people of the region. As all of us know, when you have to take time to make the best possible decisions you can, some pain is associated with that. I think the government needs to do everything it possibly can to avoid that being any greater than it needs to be. At the same time, it is a situation in which, because of the way we are addressing it, one can recognize that we do place a priority on that area the hon. member has referred to.
[ Page 6349 ]
C. Serwa: During your unavoidable absence, hon. Chair, the minister again spoke of some perceived desperate fiscal situation the former administration left this government with. Perhaps the minister would be able to explain that to me more fully. I lack the ability to understand how the lowest debt repayment schedule of any jurisdiction in Canada affects them some two years into their particular mandate. The minister is well aware that credibility is exceedingly important, and certainly of all ministries the Ministry of Environment and the Minister of Environment have to be credible. The minister voluntarily brought it up; perhaps he could enlighten me on how it affects him at the present time.
The Chair: Hon. minister, only as it may be approached under the administration of your office, if you would.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, as we say, we have to live with our history, and there is cause and effect. To the extent that the previous government has caused an effect, that is the context in which my comments were made.
C. Serwa: I think that was one of Newton's laws of motion. And perhaps the colloquial saying is: "The chickens come home to roost."
Nevertheless, a question on protected-areas strategy: perhaps the minister could again advise me of where the 12 percent figure came from, which the current government is endeavouring to adhere to.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I'd be glad to comment on that. The 12 percent certainly is consistent with the recommendation that comes through the Brundtland report on the United Nations commission on the environment and development. I want to say that the 12 percent was an identifiable target that this government was able to put before the public as part of a vision that was part and parcel of the commitment we were making about land use planning. It is an easily identifiable target that people can readily understand and relate to. That there was clarity regarding that is an important part of it, and I think I need to recognize that. The basic concept comes from the Brundtland commission.
When it comes right down to it, I realize there are arguments that can be made. You know -- why stop at 12 percent? Why does it have to be that much? Why couldn't it be more? I think government at some point needs to put out a quantifiable objective and say that we are committed to that, so that it can be measured against that commitment.
C. Serwa: I recognize that it was the report of the United Nations by Dr. Brundtland, entitled Our Common Future, and that's undoubtedly where the 12 percent came from. However, I might add that each jurisdiction is really quite independent. While it was a report to the United Nations, there were many different nations with different population densities, etc. But when you look at the province of British Columbia and the amount of wilderness area.... As a matter of fact, if we take elevations above 6,500 feet probably, we will find that something like 35 percent of the province is above that particular elevation -- which in perpetuity, fundamentally, will remain wilderness area. The 12 percent designated as a goal could be more than adequately achieved by the recognition that at this elevation, let's say, for the sake of argument -- for value as far as forestry is concerned -- anything over 6,500 feet is really in the realm of non-merchantable timber. We could certainly get the 12 percent at the higher elevations.
If the minister is looking at 12 percent of all the scapes of the province of British Columbia in his protected-areas strategy, that is a vastly different type of situation. If I'm led to believe that we're going to take 12 percent of the area of the working forests -- which cover something like 30 or 35 percent, or less, of the land area of the province -- and put them into the protected-areas strategy, then I guess it's 12 percent of the old growth forest and 12 percent of the arable land in the lower elevations in the province. If we're going to get 12 percent of a cross-section, then I think there is a great need for apprehension and concern among the population of British Columbia. That type of application of the 12 percent is certainly going to impact negatively on the economy of the province and fail to generate any economic stability or growth. We need that to fund the activities of government. Perhaps the minister could expand on that 12 percent.
Hon. J. Cashore: I find the hon. member's comments intriguing. I don't know if he was beginning to outline Social Credit parks policy by saying that the only parkland should be up in ice fields, or if he is making the point that because a certain percentage of the province in that area is not that accessible, maybe we should just say that that's what needs to be protected. Up in the ice fields, you won't find very many of the various ecosections of the province, for instance. You won't find very many coastal hemlock forests up there, or even montane hemlock forests. You won't find Douglas fir forests up there. You won't find Okanagan grasslands up there. I could go on. Clearly, as we have stated publicly many times and as the member well knows, the government's 12 percent is based on representative ecosections.
In the interests of sustainability and of recognizing the values of biodiversity, we believe that we need to be working on a number of fronts to protect that natural heritage. That natural heritage is something that I believe has many different kinds of values -- including spiritual values -- that I hope will be available to our children and our grandchildren.
There are issues around that 12 percent that raise very valid questions about how this impacts on the resource-based economy. Those are important questions. But I think that this hon. member is very much in a minority position in the province if he is going in the direction of saying that we should not be identifying ways of protecting, for all time, representations of what was here during the time of European contact. I know that the hon. member has made a point about the economy, but again, part of the economic future of this land is based on the fact that we have an international
[ Page 6350 ]
reputation, second to none in the world, which is our responsibility to protect. It's not so much to protect so that other people will come here, which is certainly part of an economic consideration, but sometimes because there are values that perhaps we as human beings, thinking that we are sometimes the highest form of life, need to reflect on. I think you could state that wilderness in itself is a value.
C. Serwa: I was certainly interested in listening to the minister's remarks. In the interior I don't suspect that there are too many glaciers that come down to the 6,500-foot elevation, so it's not all glaciers. You may have some in the coastal areas that come to that, but that wasn't the point of the question. If anyone is going to put words into someone else's mouth, I think we'd better try to listen up a little bit, rather than remark back and forth.
The specific question I asked was with respect to the 12 percent representation in all the scapes. The minister knows full well that I had no intention of saying that we should get our percentage from the alpine areas or the remote areas to the exclusion of all areas. I was talking about the consistency and the dedication to the 12 percent figure in the various systems. I've spent a great deal of my life outdoors, so I'm certainly familiar with what elevations different species of trees grow in, with a variety of different ecosystems and certainly with the value of the wildlife resource and the wilderness. So I have no difficulty with that.
But in looking at the plan, the hon. member next to me indicated his specific concerns with forestry. If we're going to be consistent with the minister's position, it appears that we're going to take 12 percent out of the working forest. We all recognize that right now we are faced with an annual allowable cut reduction in the province of British Columbia, and rightfully so. This will only accelerate the economic devastation that is starting in the province at the present time with the policies of this government. Would the minister confirm that he is looking for 12 percent of all the various scapes and ecosystems in the province? Or are we going to look in a sensitive, realistic, commonsense way at the dedication for the achievement of this 12 percent?
Hon. J. Cashore: We've said many times that the 12 percent is based on representative ecosystems to the fullest extent possible. In three or four instances that's not possible because of the amount of land that has been altered. It's also subject to recreational, wildlife and landscape values. Considerations have to be brought to that of some landscapes in which it would not be possible to achieve 12 percent of that representation. There has to be some flexibility in this, but it is seeking to achieve that goal based on representative ecosystems to the greatest extent possible.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to return to some of the points we were making earlier about the priorities of the Ministry of Environment as outlined in the briefing paper. We've canvassed the various committees, and we will be getting the briefing note with the structure and the flow charts. I have a concern based on the discussion we had earlier about the mandate of CORE. The question that I think is fundamental not only to what we are doing here but to what this government is going to establish as the economically sustainable land base versus the conservation issues is: who owns the land use strategy? The minister indicated that it is owned by government, ultimately. Even though we have the public reporting process of CORE, the protected-areas strategy, the aboriginal issues and the Fraser basin management board, etc., ultimately every committee here will report to whatever process they are in. All those processes then come to government, so government owns the final decision.
[5:00]
I have a concern, based on the discussion we had before, that if we have the protected-areas committees through the assistant deputy minister's committee and the flow chart that goes with that; if we have that dovetailing with CORE; if we recognize that in the interim CORE has what we call pre-ownership of the land use strategy before it goes to government; if CORE's mandate is to develop a comprehensive land use strategy without prejudice to the aboriginal land claims; and if we know, as we do from talking to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, that the negotiations do not allow for third-party involvement, how on earth can CORE develop their land use strategy without any knowledge of what will be determined in the negotiations with the first nations for the aboriginal land settlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is provision within the CORE process and at the CORE tables for first nations to be involved in that. As I said at the beginning, those considerations are done without prejudice to the treaty-making process on a government-to-government basis between the first nations and the government of British Columbia. So to the greatest extent possible, it is beneficial to the process to have the input of first nations, but that is done on a without-prejudice basis.
J. Tyabji: I understand that, which is why I made reference to it. The minister has now raised another thing that we have to discuss. If the Ministry of Environment is dealing with the first nations people on a government-to-government basis, as many of the government ministries are doing, we really need to know how they define first nations government. But that's the next issue -- I'm just flagging it because it was brought up. We have to come back to the fact that the first nations have input into the CORE process. That's fine, but that's a separate issue.
What I am talking about is the fact that we have aboriginal land claims negotiations going on through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It's my understanding that at the negotiations table there are only the first nation involved and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs or the designate. Those are the only people who are privy to the ongoing negotiations on the land base. The map they are dealing with is only within the confines of that discussion. But it is the same land that CORE is mandated to develop the land use strategy on. Is there a provision somewhere -- and I don't care about being privy to the details -- where the CORE committee is being apprised of the negotiations on the
[ Page 6351 ]
aboriginal land settlements? If there is, can we at least know the mechanism? I understand that we can't know the details of those negotiations -- that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the mechanism that is going to allow the people in the CORE process to know that when they have finished their deliberations, they haven't ended up making up a strategy on something that ends up being negotiated in a separate ministry without third-party involvement and so that they haven't, in effect, wasted their time.
Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time the only land claim treaty-making process involving government to government is in the area of the Nass involving the Nisga'a. That process is dealing with the issue of land ownership. CORE is a process that's dealing with the issue of land use. Where CORE is involved in a decision in an area that involves a claim of a first nation, the recommendations of CORE -- indeed, the decisions of government -- are made without prejudice to those land ownership considerations as they emerge in that area.
So the question about the linkage between the discussions that take place and the treaty-making, government-to-government process in CORE is a question that you may also wish to put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Through the interagency processes, there is every effort to share information. But that's a very distinct process with a very distinct mandate which is a land ownership mandate.
J. Tyabji: I will definitely take it up in the Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
The top three priorities outlined by the Ministry of Environment are the protected-areas strategy, the CORE planning process and aboriginal issues; and as the Minister of Environment is using these terms, it is very important for us to understand them. Land ownership I understand. We're talking about mapping out the title. But because the Minister of Environment is dealing, in his own terms, as government to government, first nations to government, then we're not just talking about land ownership in terms of title; we're talking about jurisdiction. My understanding is that the provincial government, the cabinet and the back bench have accepted the aboriginal package outlined in the Charlottetown accord. If that is the case and that is the definition of jurisdiction that we're using for this land title, then land use is going to be determined by those who have ownership, because they will have full jurisdiction over that land. That means that even if the Stephen Owen commission makes recommendations for plot A in its scheme of things, if that ends up being owned by a first nation, they have no jurisdiction over it -- none. They have no environmental or watershed management jurisdiction, because that's what this government has accepted through the aboriginal package in the Charlottetown accord.
If this minister is also saying -- and this is critical to the operation of the Ministry of Environment.... If the protected-areas strategy, which we've already established is to work in conjunction with the CORE process, though it will work differently by region based on whether there's a regional CORE committee or a committee under the assistant deputy minister's office.... Whatever it is, we know that they're tailoring the protected-areas strategy to CORE. If the mandate for CORE is to develop a land use strategy, but we can't have details as to what land will be left until after the negotiations, then when CORE is finished we could be in a situation where a large chunk of that land will have been removed because of aboriginal land claims.
I think it is important not only for the Ministry of Environment but for Aboriginal Affairs, the Attorney General's office and everyone else to nail down that it's not just ownership. It's jurisdiction; it's sovereignty. If you're talking government to government, that's what we're talking about here. There's no point in wasting tax dollars -- if we want to be really cynical -- developing a strategy for land that's not going to be in the government's jurisdiction when they're finished. That's basically the point.
An Hon. Member: What's the alternative?
J. Tyabji: I hear a member of the government back bench asking: "What's the alternative?" I would be happy to talk about the alternative. I don't think that's the debate we're having right now. I just want to establish that that's what we're dealing with -- a process that in the end may develop a strategy for land that will not be within the government's jurisdiction when they're finished.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I've said before, there is aboriginal representation at the CORE tables, in CORE's ongoing work with regard to land use. I would caution the hon. member with regard to making assumptions about the results of the government-to-government negotiations. I recognize that she's saying she may raise that issue with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as well as tying it back into the CORE process and therefore into the Ministry of Environment. But again, I think it's presumptuous to make assumptions about what that treaty-making process will result in, because many of these things are the subject of negotiation.
It is a valuable point to raise in these discussions. While I understand that the minister defends the estimates, it is intriguing to hear some of these comments and to really wonder at a very deep level what the thought is that lies behind the question. What is the suggested alternative? That would be a helpful process to add to this debate.
J. Tyabji: Before doing that I would like to ask some very basic questions, just so we can establish.... The minister has made reference to me making assumptions. So just to put it on the table, when this minister is referring to government-to-government negotiations, am I to understand that in large part the aboriginal package outlined in the referendum is the basis for those comments?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would say that these are very important discussions that are taking place on a government-to-government basis, and it would behoove the hon. member not to make assumptions about what the final result of that is going to be. The
[ Page 6352 ]
result will be privy to that important process, and it's important that we recognize that.
J. Tyabji: I'll ask the minister in a different way, then. Could this minister, for the purpose of the debate, give me his definition of first nations government? That is the term he is using.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd be glad to do that in the form of an example. The parks branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks negotiated with the Nisga'a toward the eventual dedication of the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. It was certainly the Nisga'a government which was party to the negotiation which resulted in that very happy outcome.
Beyond using that example, I really would expect it to be clearly recognized, before I go down this slope much further, that this question should be answered by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I would refer that question to that debate. I have responded to it in the context of my mandate, but I think that we should clearly delineate between the debate of this committee and that committee.
C. Serwa: Since the minister has used the term government to government several times in the course of this debate, it is only fair to ask the minister what he means when he uses the term. Obviously, the minister is confident and should know what he means by using the term government to government.
In the Nisga'a situation we're dealing with a tribal council. There are some 27 or 30 tribal councils in the province of B.C. In the case of the gaming branch and the Ministry of Attorney General, for example, they are referring to government to government as giving the Nanaimo band a status equivalent to the provincial government of the province of B.C. When you say government to government, it appears that the considerations given on these government-to-government negotiations are vastly different than the municipal government to provincial government situations.
I think that when the minister uses the term, the minister has to comprehend the implications and the meaning. Is he talking about tribal councils? Is he talking about bands? If a band is an independent nation -- as in the case of the Nanaimo band being in nation-to-nation consultation, as the Attorney General has said -- there are over 300 bands in the province of British Columbia. Clarification has to be given, because this is an important question.
Hon. J. Cashore: When I referred to my example, in that case the government-to-government interaction was between the ministry and the Nisga'a. I would say it was the government of the Nisga'a first nation. If you want to define it as a tribal council, that's fine, but they define themselves as a government in that context, where those negotiations are taking place.
In the hon. member's reference to other situations with regard to aboriginal peoples throughout the province, he simply states the obvious -- that there are complex and varied situations, and it is true that in each one of those situations you would need to have a sense of definition to encompass that circumstance. Obviously that flexibility needs to be there.
With regard to the Ministry of Environment, where these issues come up often, the considerations are not on a government-to-government basis. For instance, there have been many questions with regard to the CORE process. There, it is a land use planning process at which aboriginal representation is part of the deliberation.
[5:15]
I'm sure we'll get into this with further questions, but with regard to the aboriginal guidelines, in those instances -- I wouldn't want to make this any more complex than it needs to be -- it would be officials from the wildlife branch, as part of that process of carrying through those interim guidelines, who would be sitting down and meeting as effectively as possible with the governing structures of the aboriginal peoples in any given area of the province where it behooves us to have those discussions.
C. Serwa: What the minister is basically saying is that they have no definition for government. That appears to be the intent of the minister's message -- that if the aboriginal peoples perceive a group of them to be government, then that's good enough for the government of the province of British Columbia. Without the provincial government establishing some sort of definition of what constitutes a government to deal on a government-to-government basis, I fail to see how the definition acquired or supported by a separate group qualifies for recognition as government.
If you look at that as establishing a precedent, could any group of individuals constitute a government if they presented themselves to the hon. minister?
The Chair: Hon. minister, insofar as the question comes under the administrative capacity of your office, and that you're not setting policy for the executive council, the government or the province of British Columbia....
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I have answered the question. I simply take the most recent comment as a statement made by the hon. member.
J. Tyabji: To get back to a bit of the discussion we were having and some of the questions that I asked the minister, when we get to the minister's comments about land ownership -- and this is relevant, and I can assure the minister that I will definitely be canvassing this in Aboriginal Affairs as it relates to that portfolio -- where I think we've got a great difficulty in Environment is that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, in my mind, doesn't have a clear definition of what we are dealing with. There are negotiations going on through another ministry which will result in not only ownership but title and jurisdiction.
The opposition is having a very difficult time in getting a definition with regard to the limits of the jurisdiction out of any minister. It doesn't seem that this government is prepared to put any limits to that jurisdiction. Will this minister agree with the statement
[ Page 6353 ]
that there is generally an expectation that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks mandate will be impacted by negotiations in another ministry and therefore the prioritized activities of the protected-areas strategy and the CORE planning process will be impacted by those negotiations? The reason I'm asking that is to find out if there is a mechanism in place to incorporate what's going on in that ministry into this ministry, so that we're not losing jurisdiction here. I'm not talking about sovereign jurisdiction; I'm just talking in terms of the portfolio.
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member is pointing out that we're dealing with a very complex set of issues here, that's true. The definitions pursuant to any of the processes that are underway, which the Ministry of Environment is involved in, are very clear. Our mandate is very clear.
The hon. member makes reference to the negotiations between the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the first nations. Those are really government of B.C. negotiations for which the ministry has responsibility. I'll leave it at that.
J. Tyabji: I was expecting a bit more detail in the answer. For the purpose of this debate, the minister had asked what perspective might be offered forward with regard to this land use jurisdiction. I'd be happy to say that the biggest concern I have as Environment critic with regard to the land use strategy is that outside of the activities of the Ministry of Environment there could be negotiations going on which will end up in direct conflict with what is trying to be achieved by the general public -- which includes the first nations, as the minister has pointed out.
The first nations are coming into the CORE process and into the protected-areas strategy process, which is a wonderful process because it is across the board. However, at the end of that we could have, and would expect to have, decisions coming forward from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that we know do not allow any third-party intervention but will have far-reaching consequences for the province. If we take the map of British Columbia right now, we don't know where we are going to be drawing those land claims, but when those land claims are drawn on the map, this government has chosen to give sovereignty to the first nations over that land, which would be in direct conflict.
My recommendation would be -- and my expectation will be -- that the people of British Columbia will not accept full sovereignty over the ownership of that land. They will accept administrative responsibilities, but they won't accept sovereignty. We are going to be in a situation where decisions are being reached which will impact this ministry and its main objectives for land strategy, but at the end of that there are expectations being raised by the first nations that I don't believe the government will be able to meet -- not because this government doesn't have the political will but because the people will not support it.
Those decisions are going to have far-reaching consequences, and it's unfortunate that they're being done without third-party involvement, because I don't think they're going to fly. The short-term problem for the Ministry of Environment is that the main issues in this portfolio cannot possibly function properly when that's happening in another portfolio. If there isn't a mechanism to incorporate that in here, then what credibility can there be if, as we assume, the baseline premise is full sovereignty or, if we're to take it into general terms, the aboriginal package that was in the referendum accord? That's what I'm getting to right now, and my recommendation would be that this minister define first nation government and determine whether that is an administrative or a sovereign role. Certainly every indication is that this government is dealing as if it's a sovereign role, in which case there's a real problem here.
D. Lovick: What you're saying is theoretically true of every ministry in government, every single one. Think about it.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would just like to thank my colleague the member for Nanaimo for making the point that what this hon. member is saying could be true of virtually every ministry in government. Part of what is being said is to state the obvious. But I would point out that there is a third party advisory committee related to the land claims process. There's also the Treaty Commission.
In terms of the question about a mechanism, there are mechanisms. One which is quite significant at the government level is the Cabinet Committee on Aboriginal Land Claims and Self-Government, of which the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is a member, as well as other appropriate members of government. So there are mechanisms; it's not correct to say there's not a process whereby third parties can be heard on this issue.
Again, we've spent a lot of time here today dealing with issues that are more appropriately put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and, on the CORE estimates, to the Attorney General. I'm sure the opposition has questions that relate to the motion at hand here, and I look forward to getting to them.
J. Tyabji: I think the basic point of why this questioning is coming under Environment is being missed. A mechanism is necessary; perhaps this recommendation can come forward as well.
You have a group of people in the protected-areas strategy committees throughout the province working on the premise that the map is mapped out a certain way. And you have a group of people through the CORE process who are putting things together. I'm not sure there's been adequate dovetailing, but it's good that there's that communication. But if you've dovetailed that, then it's not adequate to have the only mechanism for monitoring how aboriginal land claims will affect this portfolio happen through the Minister of Environment. You're not doing justice to the other two systems. They're going to come forward with a certain set of expectations that are going to be at direct odds with the decisions coming out of the other ministry.
So if the cabinet -- and I don't have a problem with this -- wants individually to wear every land use
[ Page 6354 ]
decision and conflict in this province, and the Minister of Environment wants to wear the decisions from this process and can fight it out with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Forests, that's fine. But my recommendation would be somewhere in here, not an advisory committee but something just in terms of integration of what they are doing. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time, because they might as well wait for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to report out. Then you know what you're dealing with. You've got your inventory of what's left, and then you can set up these processes. The point is: let's not waste unnecessary time and money. These are great processes if they are given adequate jurisdiction, and they don't have it right now. So I'd recommend that that come forward.
I know we don't have a lot of time left. Is the minister looking to respond to that? Just to briefly go through this, in the Fraser Basin Management Board, which is listed as one of the government's priorities, can you map out the role of the federal versus the provincial government? And in what capacity is the provincial government acting?
Hon. J. Cashore: The federal government, the provincial government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities have an equal role in the assignment of members to the board. I can give you that off the top of my head, but I am going to ask the deputy to jot that down for me -- the makeup of the board. There is representation of various segments of the communities. There are also regional subcommittees in communities, such as Prince George, as part of that process.
The federal portion of the funding for the Fraser Basin Management Board and process comes from the federal Green Plan. Provincial funding comes in a variety of ways, and again, I may be supported on this by some further notes that will be handed to me. Its provincial funding comes from the ongoing work of the ministry with regard to various liquid waste plans and similar efforts in the basin region.
With regard to the board, there are three each of provincial, federal and municipal representatives, three first nations, six independents and one chairperson for a total of 19.
J. Tyabji: Seeing the time, I move that the committee adjourn.
The Chair: No, the motion is to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]