1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 3
[ Page 9947 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Reid: It's my pleasure to welcome Mr. Reni Masi to the chambers. Mr. Masi is the president of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.
J. Pullinger: I am very pleased today that we have visiting in the gallery a group of students from Duncan Christian School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Cousins, and a number of other adults. I'd ask my colleagues and friends in the House to help me make them welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's my pleasure to make a double introduction today of two former Attorneys General. We have examples that there is life after politics, if you look at the interesting and sanguine....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: We don't make that decision, the voters do -- about all of us in this House. We're all equal before the voters.
We have with us the Attorney General from 1972 to 1975. As Attorney General, he was an activist who carried out a number of initiatives, such as launching the Legal Aid Society and many other very good changes to our justice system. He's now an author, a raconteur, a professor and an active tennis player. I would like you to give a very warm welcome to a very active and distinguished British Columbian, Alec Macdonald.
We also have another former Attorney General, under the Social Credit government. He was a lay Attorney General and set the trend -- which I think is a good one -- that you don't have to be a lawyer to be a good Attorney General. Although we may have different politics, British Columbia is a small place when you really get down to it. Previous Attorney General Russ Fraser is the brother of my old law partner, Peter Fraser. We've had many discussions where we agree to disagree. Would you give a very warm welcome to Russ Fraser.
V. Anderson: I want to second the welcome to Russ Fraser, a former member for my riding, with a lot of history and support from a lot of people there. I want to wish him well from them as well.
A. Hagen: I am very pleased today to welcome, and ask you to join me in welcoming, six teachers from New Westminster Secondary School who have been attending a very important conference, Focus '94, working for their students in special education. I'm very happy they've taken a few minutes to be with us today. Welcome.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House some folks that are very special to me. I have visiting me here today my sisters and my friends, Elizabeth and Bonnie. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I promised yesterday, hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table a report in respect of Danny Perrault.
Leave granted.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INVOLVEMENT IN GORDON WATSON CASE
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In August 1993 my office was served with a subpoena for me to attend court in order to testify in the contempt-of-court trial between, among others, the Everywoman's health clinic and Gordon Watson. Mr. Watson believed that I would have information relevant to his trial for contempt of court. An affidavit was prepared for my signature. It stated that I had no information relevant to Mr. Watson's defence of this charge. It also stated that I had met with representatives of the Everywoman's Health Centre Society on one occasion, but that no individual court cases were discussed. I also deposed in my affidavit that I had taken no notes of my meeting.
The court quashed the subpoena. On Monday, April 11, I was advised by my staff that a reporter with the Vancouver Sun had sent a copy of my affidavit to the ministry along with some other documents that had been obtained under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. One of the documents included some points jotted down in handwriting, which my staff believed to be mine. The reporter wanted my comments.
[2:15]
Prior to my arrival in my office on Monday, my staff made a search of my office files to see if the original document containing the handwriting could be found. They located jottings on the back of a page in the middle of a 28-page briefing book, which had been prepared for me for a June 17, 1993, meeting. Upon my arrival, my staff showed me a copy of my affidavit from August 1993, and these jottings, which appeared to be in my handwriting. It was clear to me upon reviewing the briefing book that I had forgotten that I had jotted some points down at the June 17, 1993, meeting. I immediately took steps to ensure that the record before the court was accurate. I want to advise the House that I filed the second affidavit in the Victoria court registry today, correcting the record before the court. I will be tabling both affidavits in the House today.
I would also like to advise members of the House that Mr. Watson has sworn a private information before a justice of the peace in which he alleges that I have committed perjury and obstruction of justice. I am advised that the justice of the peace refused to issue any further process with respect to Gordon Watson's private information. Nonetheless, I was advised by the Deputy Attorney General on Friday, April 8, that as a result of this private information being sworn, the Crown had taken over conduct of the private prosecution. This action was taken in strict conformity with the Crown Counsel Act and the Crown counsel policy manual.
As hon. members know, the Crown Counsel Act was enacted in 1991. It now empowers the Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the criminal justice branch to appoint a special independent prosecutor and requires that person not to be an employee of my ministry. In cases where a senior public official is named, it is the practice of the criminal justice branch, even in a private prosecution, to refer the matter to a special prosecutor. I am advised that Richard Peck, QC, of Vancouver has been assigned the responsibility of reviewing Gordon Watson's allegations. I fully endorse the action taken by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and I will cooperate fully with Mr. Peck during the course of his review. If Mr. Peck determines that there is any criminal wrongdoing whatever on my part, I will immediately take the appropriate steps.
[ Page 9948 ]
If I may, I would like to ask leave to table the two affidavits that I referred to in my statement.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: I thank the hon. Attorney General for the statement that he has just given to the House; this is obviously a serious matter. It's a very serious matter, indeed, when the chief law officer of the province has these kinds of charges levelled towards him. I think all members of this House would want to presume the innocence of the Attorney General in this before we would prejudge anything; but, with the process of the special prosecutor that has been enacted today, I would question whether or not the Attorney General would want to remain in his post while the special prosecutor is investigating this matter. While this cloud is hanging over the chief law officer of the province, it may be untenable for him to continue with his duties as the Attorney General of British Columbia. So I would just question whether or not he can, under these circumstances, remain and whether or not he should step aside while this investigation is being completed.
J. Dalton: I actually did have occasion to see a copy of the affidavit in question this morning. I have every confidence, as the opposition does, of course, in the office of the Attorney General, and we're not going to make any further comment.
REPORT ON PERRAULT CASE
J. Dalton: To the Attorney General. This week we have seen startling allegations that there has been a serious cover-up at all levels within Corrections with regard to the Danny Perrault case. This morning in the media, a Corrections worker alleged that certain files on Mr. Perrault had gone missing. Can the Attorney General confirm today that there are missing files in this case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I can't, hon. Speaker. I have not been advised that any files are missing, but I will undertake to all members of the House that I will make inquiries about the matter. I'm not taking the question on notice; I'm simply saying that I don't know at this point, but I will inquire and report back to the House on my findings.
The Speaker: The effect is, nonetheless, of a question taken on notice.
The hon. member has a new question?
Interjections.
J. Dalton: With respect, he did say....
The Speaker: The member has a new point to make, a different point?
J. Dalton: Yes, I do.
This same worker also alleges that within upper management there were instructions to, in effect, force staff to transfer Perrault to New Haven. Will the Attorney General today call for an independent investigation into this very serious allegation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this point I would rather that members of the House and, in particular, the opposition Attorney General critic take the time to read the report and, following that, if he chooses, to consult with me and members of my staff about questions that may arise in his mind. It may make that question irrelevant.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate the point the Attorney General made, and of course, we will read the report with some interest. However, with all respect, there is something rather smelly in his ministry. Why is he afraid to call for an independent investigation into this very serious allegation? The public wants some assurance.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I agree that this is a very serious situation. I think everybody in this House and in this province was angered and very distressed about the events that followed as a result of the assignment of Mr. Perrault to a minimum-security prison. The staff of the inspections division of the corrections branch in our ministry have done what, in my view, is a full and comprehensive report, which I think answers the questions that needed to be answered. Among those questions that needed to be answered, there were clear indications that the procedures used in the corrections branch were horribly wrong, and those procedures have been corrected as a result of this report.
B.C. ENERGY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The minister just axed the B.C. Energy Council. During the Energy Council debates of May '92, you said that the council would work on a two-year framework, yet you gave Richard Gathercole a five-year contract. Can the Minister of Energy tell us just what Mr. Gathercole will be doing for his $300,000 when the Energy Council is finished?
Hon. A. Edwards: We put the Energy Council together with a very laudable goal, which was to make sure that the people of British Columbia had the opportunity to have input into energy policy in British Columbia. It has worked extremely well. The people in the regions and the people working with the Energy Council have been very appreciative of this opportunity.
As the Energy Council was doing its work and working toward a two-year energy plan, it became very clear that we have a number of consultation processes going on across the province and that we could do some of the functions in a different way. That was what prompted the decision that, after the two-year energy strategy is brought to the minister, we would actually wind down the Energy Council's activity. I certainly thank the member for his question.
D. Jarvis: She was right, Mr. Speaker. The Energy Council was a huge waste of money, a gift to all those NDP hacks. We have learned that Energy Council member Bill Best received $101,000 from B.C. Hydro in consulting fees while still on the council. That is clearly a conflict of interest. Why did the minister allow Mr. Best to work for the Energy Council while at the same time billing B.C. Hydro a further $101,000?
Interjections.
[ Page 9949 ]
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: As you know, Mr. Best is a part-time councillor with the Energy Council. Previous to that, he served on the Utilities Commission, and worked for B.C. Hydro before that. So Mr. Best has a long and honourable experience in working for public bodies in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: The minister is right in one aspect.
The Liberal opposition has learned that Mr. Best was not only double-dipping, he was triple-dipping -- contrary to B.C. Hydro's policy. While billing $101,000 to B.C. Hydro, Mr. Best was also receiving a pension from Hydro. Why did the minister allow one of her Energy Council councillors to triple-dip, and break B.C. Hydro's policy?
Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Best was recommended as a part-time councillor on the Energy Council by a number of groups who made recommendations to the minister. He was one of the hardest-working members of that council.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: Many council members were named to the council because they had good experience in the energy field. That is what one would expect on a council that is going to listen to the public. Mr. Best put forward very long hours and considerable efforts, and he has achieved a great deal on the Energy Council. I believe that he has done everything he could have been expected to do. He was a very good council member.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT
L. Hanson: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. 21. The Lloyd Little review of construction costs for the Vancouver Island Highway estimated the extra cost of the master agreement to be in the area of $5 million. Can the minister confirm that the review was done without consultation with the roadbuilding industry, and without reference to the agreement that was finally reached?
Hon. G. Clark: The review by the chartered accountant firm was on the basis of information provided by the Ministry of Highways' Transportation Financing Authority. That information was the result of extensive consultation with the roadbuilding industry.
[2:30]
I want to take a moment to correct the assertion in the member's question that this costs more. In fact, the accountants found that the most cost-effective way of building a billion-dollar project was through project agreements, like many members of the private sector make -- and public sector bodies like B.C. Hydro did it for years and years under W.A.C. Bennett.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
L. Hanson: A supplementary to the same minister. The Lloyd Little review used the fair-wage policy as a basis and assumed that there would be a one-month labour disruption, even though the industry has had only one minor disruption in the last 26 years. Will the minister confirm that the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association's estimate of the increase in cost amounts to at least 30 percent, or in excess of $200 million, as far as the total project is concerned?
Hon. G. Clark: This is a ludicrous assertion by the ICBA, and I'm surprised to hear it mentioned in the House. The entire labour cost for the Island Highway is about $300 million. So the member and the ICBA are saying that the overrun as a result of this agreement would be about the same as the entire labour cost for the project. It's ludicrous; there is absolutely no foundation in fact.
The reality is that the collective agreement brings wages down to the fair-wage level. It provides one apprentice for the first tradesperson hired and one apprentice for every three after that. It means that local unemployed people on Vancouver Island will be hired first, rather than having people moving in from Alberta to take publicly funded jobs in B.C. Finally, it means that the Island Highway, a billion-dollar project, will be built on time and on budget, with no strikes and no lockouts.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a final supplementary?
L. Hanson: It seems there might be a little difference of opinion as to what the actual cost of that agreement might be. Price Waterhouse did this one, but I know the minister responsible has great confidence in the ability of the firm of Peat Marwick to do financial analysis. It would only seem fair that the minister commit at this point to referring this master contract and its actual cost to provincial taxpayers, so that people in British Columbia can really get an independent review of the actual cost.
The Speaker: Is the minister responding? There was not really a question, hon. minister.
Hon. G. Clark: I thought I heard a question.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. There was not a question.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sure I heard a question in there.
The Speaker: No, there was not a clear question.
I'll recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell the House why he and the Minister of Environment are 14 days late in announcing his major policy on provincial water exports?
The Speaker: The member has a further question?
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Minister of Environment, then, can tell us if he's received Treasury Board approval yet for the purchase of 20 to 40 natural gas buses for Vancouver.
The Speaker: The member has a further question?
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a....
Interjections.
[ Page 9950 ]
The Speaker: Order, please. Question, hon. member?
G. Farrell-Collins: My next question is to the Premier, so he'll have an opportunity to respond. I have in my possession a confidential 120-day media scan from the office of the Minister of Employment and Investment, which contains every single good-news item the NDP has planned for the next 90 days...
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...for the spring. Can the Premier tell us if it's his intention to go upon a pre-election, multimillion-dollar spending spree, unseen since the good old, dark days of Bill Vander Zalm?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I know the Liberals don't like to hear good news; they only like to talk about bad news. I think it's good that they are finally reading the good news about the progress this province is making in new transit systems, highways, schools, bridges and courthouses -- all the positive changes being brought to this province. If the hon. member would like to come on that tour....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, he calls it a tour. I don't call it a tour. B.C. is my office; I'm just going to be in my office. If the hon. member would like to change his ways and repent...
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...for voting against capital investments in these assets in his riding and every other riding in the province, he can come along and repent.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period. I'm going to recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who was on his feet.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Speaker can indicate what the rules are for question period.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove raises a pertinent question that concerns the Speaker very much. As all members will know, I recently circulated to all members standing order 47A, which outlines the parameters of question period. Unless members adhere to those guidelines, it will be very difficult for the Chair to maintain order. I would suggest that all members review the standing orders.
REPORT ON PERRAULT CASE
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Attorney General. I'd like to say that this is following questions by myself on Monday, and by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast yesterday, dealing with the Danny Perrault escape. I note that the hon. Attorney General has just tabled an internal report by the corrections branch into that matter. Unfortunately, the report has been very heavily sanitized, and I question whether all the omissions and deletions are really required by provincial and federal statutes. However, in light of the fact that this report does not clear the cloud of doubt and suspicion currently hanging over the administration of justice in our corrections branch in British Columbia -- this report just doesn't do it -- will the Attorney General agree today to strike a full and independent public inquiry into our corrections system and, in particular, how the corrections system deals with dangerous offenders?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no.
H. Lali: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend from my days at the University of British Columbia. We also shared an Urdu class together in my first year at UBC. Would the House please welcome Bhagwant Singh Sandhu.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 4.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to have placed a bill before this House which will amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act established the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The SPCA has been operating throughout British Columbia to protect animals from mistreatment for almost a hundred years -- as a matter of fact, the society will be celebrating its 100th anniversary next year. The society has over 16,000 members and 34 branches, located in all regions of this province. For many years, government has relied on the SPCA and its many dedicated volunteers to serve the public's interest in ensuring that animals are treated humanely.
The society has provided that service with great effectiveness and without interruption, but for some 15 years it has been asking government to amend the act to give the SPCA more effective powers to protect animals from abuse and mistreatment. In addition, the people of British Columbia have made it very clear that they want the SPCA to have better powers to protect animals. In the past two years alone, my predecessor, the hon. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and I have received over 350 letters from people in all areas of the province, asking us to give the SPCA better powers. The government is acting on those requests and amending the act to give the SPCA powers which will greatly improve its ability to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals.
Prevention of animal abuse is the main purpose of the SPCA. Its primary objective is always to try to make sure that animals are treated properly in the first case, and to use its enforcement powers only as a last resort. To that end, the bill will amend the act to give the SPCA the power to inspect premises where animals are kept for sale, hire or exhibition. This is a new power for the SPCA -- one which the society has made very clear to me it needs in order to do its job properly. The SPCA has a good relationship with the people who operate these types of premises, and in many cases it is already doing inspections. However, the SPCA has to rely on the goodwill of the person operating the premises for
[ Page 9951 ]
permission to come onto their property, because the act presently does not give the society the express right to do so.
Having the right to go onto any premises where animals are kept for sale, hire or exhibition will enable the SPCA to identify cases where animals are not being treated properly, and to work with the person who owns the animals to make sure they receive the proper care. Cooperating with animal owners to make sure that animals are treated humanely has always been the chosen approach of the society. However, sometimes that cooperation does not work, and therefore the bill will make it an offence for persons to cause distress to an animal. Distress will be defined to focus on the state of the animals; it will deal with the physical needs of the animals for food, water, shelter and veterinary care, and with the abuse or neglect of animals. Certain things will quite clearly cause distress to an animal. For example, leaving an animal locked up for two weeks with no food and water would obviously lead to problems for the animal. But other types of behaviour which are less obvious can also cause serious problems for animals -- for example, the chronic neglect of an animal, such as the failure to provide food and water over time, or nutritious food and clean water. I want to emphasize that these things are not the norm. Most people who have animals know what they need to do to look after their animals properly, but some people don't know -- or they know but don't care. In these cases the SPCA has to have a tool which will give a person incentive to cooperate with them to help the animal. The offence provision will require the SPCA to give an animal owner the chance to take action immediately to help the animal. However, if the owner ignores the warning, the society will have the authority to take action to help the animal and to recommend to Crown counsel that charges be laid.
This amendment will overcome a problem that the SPCA currently faces in trying to get cooperation -- namely, having to rely completely on the Criminal Code to deter persons from abusing animals. The problem with having to rely on the Criminal Code is that the SPCA has to be able to prove that a person intended to cause pain to the animal. In most cases, that is very difficult to prove, and it means that many cases in which the public's interest would be served by a prosecution never end up in court. This has created problems for the SPCA, because it has nothing it can use to deal with cases of chronic neglect. The result has been that the SPCA often sees the same cases over and over again. The offence we are putting in the act will focus on the state of the animal rather than on the state of mind of the animal owner. This will make it easier for the society to deal with cases of neglect.
The bill will also amend the act to give a court the power to prohibit a person who has been convicted of the offence from possessing an animal for a period of time specified by the court. The court will be able to make that order on any terms it thinks appropriate for the case. The main purpose of these orders will be to protect animals by prohibiting a person who has been convicted of causing distress to an animal from possessing one or by putting conditions on possession.
[2:45]
The orders will also give the courts a very effective tool for preventing possible future mistreatment. For example, the courts could make orders which require the animal owner to allow the SPCA or a veterinarian to conduct regular checks on the animals or orders which require an animal owner to follow a regime, which has been approved by a veterinarian, for the caring of animals. Those kinds of orders will help ensure that people are informed about proper methods of caring for animals and will help the SPCA deal with neglect caused by ignorance.
In proposing the amendments to the act to increase the powers of the SPCA, I have also been aware of the fact that the SPCA needs to recognize all the interests of the public when using its power under the act. The SPCA has always done that, and I am confident that the society will continue to do so. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that the significant powers given to the SPCA are used reasonably. To help ensure that, the amendments will require the SPCA to put in place comprehensive policies and procedures to guide its agents on the use of the act's enforcement powers, and they will make those policies subject to government review. SPCA agents will also have to be appointed as special provincial constables under the Police Act in order to be able to exercise the act's enforcement powers. This will ensure that SPCA agents have proper training, and it will also give the public the right to have an agent's actions reviewed by an independent review body when they're unhappy with the actions of an agent.
The amendments will also expressly state that the offence provision does not apply to activities carried out according to reasonable and generally accepted management practices. They will emphasize that the act must be administered in a way which ensures that animals are treated humanely, while still allowing uses of animals to continue.
The people of this province owe a great debt of gratitude to the SPCA for its valuable public work, and I am confident that all members of this House will support the amendments I am proposing.
R. Chisholm: It gives me pleasure to rise to give tentative support for the direction in which this bill is going. It is high time. We on this side of the House have great respect for the work the SPCA does. We're not so sure about the government, but the SPCA is in good hands. This bill will correct some of the problems we have seen with the SPCA.
I realize that this bill was written in cooperation and in conjunction with the SPCA. There has been a lot of cooperation, and the SPCA has had ample opportunity to voice its opinions and have input into this bill. It is a good bill. I've talked to people in the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, and they too are in support of this bill. They have problems with some of the terminology, but they are in support of the general avenue this bill is travelling on.
Like I said, I will give tentative support in second reading. There are a few items that need clarification by the minister, such as the definition of cruelty. What does cruelty mean to you and to me? We want to hear what the minister thinks about that, considering it is not defined in the bill. It could be an area of contention. Another area we want clarification on is: what is critical distress, and how do you judge it? Veterinarians are having problems with these terminologies. We'd like to hear the minister's point of view on this so we'll have it on the record, and people will know where they stand. Another area is the powers of the authorized agent, or special constable. What training is the SPCA going to have to make sure that it's standardized? What standards do the special constables adhere to when they go out on a task? We would like to hear just what the standards will be. It's not talked about in the bill now. There is another area that the minister should take a look at, and we will be discussing it in committee stage. What is meant by reasonable and generally accepted practice? We're talking about farm animals. That terminology should be clarified for the opposition before this bill is passed.
[ Page 9952 ]
We will be canvassing these issues in committee stage in order to hear the minister's point of view. We'll be debating it at that time, but we are tentatively supporting this bill.
C. Serwa: I'm pleased to rise and speak on second reading of Bill 4. It's rather interesting that the justification for this piece of legislation is the 350 letters that have come in from throughout the province. I find it very difficult to understand that 350 letters could prompt this legislation. It may or may not be valid. The initiative, encouraged by 350 letters, seems to me to be very small. I have concerns with that. While I speak to the philosophy and principles of this bill, I do have concerns that only 600 or 700 protestors at Clayoquot had enough impetus to get the government to make vast concessions. On the other hand, 20,000 or 30,000 individuals who work in the forest industry showed up at the Legislature, and there has been no accommodation whatsoever. I just want to bring that forward when we look at this piece of legislation.
I don't think any thinking, feeling, caring person would have any difficulty understanding the need for the control and influence and power that an organization such as the SPCA will have to look after neglected animals. I guess the real difficulty here is that a lot of this is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't know how the minister proposes that regulations will be drawn up through this legislation that will indicate clearly what is on one side of the line and what is on the other side.
The Minister of Agriculture is a rancher from the north country. Calving season probably takes place in late February for early calves. We can get cold snaps in that country; it can be 40 or 50 below. Perhaps that's going to be perceived as cruelty to animals. It's obviously stressful for the animals. They do provide shelters in some places, but in most places calving occurs on the open range. Is that going to be subject to pressures by the animal rights people? The minister shakes his head and indicates no. But I have specific concerns when a piece of well-intentioned legislation.... We often see a child's pet horse being put in the back forty and left there on soft ground. The hoofs continue to grow, and when they're not trimmed, we start to get all sorts of problems. I understand the need for the SPCA in there.
Going back to the cattle industry, we talk about the stresses on animals. We have what's called shipping fever. There are bacteria in the throats of all of the animals, especially young calves. A great deal of sickness is the result of the stress involved in shipping. Is that something that would be subject to this legislation? Again the minister shakes his head no, and I'm comforted by that, but I don't know just how it will be protected or prevented.
There is certainly a large group of people out there who are very concerned about high-density agriculture. It may be in the poultry industry, the hog industry or aspects of the dairy industry, where the animals are kept in a relatively confined space and not allowed to graze freely. That, I think, does occur. Again, will this legislation prevent the type of animal husbandry that's presently acceptable?
What about veal calves, where they're kept in relatively small confined spaces? It's obviously very stressful, not really very normal, but that's the way veal calves are brought up. I don't know that much about the industry, but I have concerns about the commercial agricultural industry being subject to this in an unfair manner. There are substantial numbers of the public looking for some mechanism, and perhaps this is the mechanism by which they can create a great deal of difficulty.
Again going back to the beef cattle industry, in some cases the winters are long. In the north country especially, when you get east of the Cariboo Highway, you get into heavier snow areas and longer winters. Sometimes we've had very wet summers, and we've had poor-quality feed with relatively low protein to put up for the animals. Perhaps the winter is long, and the ranchers are not that flush with money. They pull the calves through, and they lose cows. They lose mother cows, too, in that particular scenario. The economics are not there. I suppose, then, under this legislation, the potential is there for the rancher to be charged. There's not very much he can possibly do. Nevertheless, we see there's a section there whereby he may be prevented being able to own animals again for a number of years. I presume, then, he's out of business.
There are a number of questions about this piece of legislation. I'm confident that it's well-intentioned and, in all probability, necessary. But I would suggest there has to be a great deal of concern with the legislation, and certainly with the regulations that will be built up around it. It's comforting to note that the Minister of Agriculture is actually engaged in farming operations, so he has a more sensitive and realistic understanding of the challenges facing that industry. But this legislation applies broadly throughout all of British Columbia -- not simply the lower mainland, not simply to pets or horses that children or families may own. It has the ability to overlay all of agriculture in the province.
I'll close my remarks on second reading by saying that, despite my concerns, I support this piece of legislation on the basis of its philosophy and principles. As we go through Committee of the Whole and look at the sections, I'll have further comments.
B. Copping: I am naturally very, very pleased to rise and support second reading of this bill. I have spoken in the House before about this. I have felt it is long overdue, and that general talk of animal protection and animal welfare in legislative chambers has been long overdue. Fortunately this government has, once again, had the political will to discuss this and, rather than just discussing it, do something about it.
Moving away from the bill, when you look at the history of what human animals have done to other animals, it has been quite appalling: cosmetic testing and dripping nail polish in the eyes of animals; force-feeding them toilet bowl cleansers until half of them die or go into convulsions; pulverizing animals in automobile testing; or putting animals, such as the majestic polar bear, in Stanley Park for the human animals' entertainment so we could watch them pace back and forth. The human animal has not had a good history, so I find it quite surprising that any member would question the intent of this act, which is a step in the right direction. It's a modest act, it's a good act, and it's moving very carefully, with a very careful organization.
As the minister said, the SPCA is the agent in this province for preventing cruelty to animals. The SPCA was founded in 1896, and for the best part of 100 years the government and the people of this province have relied on the SPCA as their agent in preventing cruelty to animals. It is a self-funded volunteer organization, and it does outstanding duty. Until I became involved with the SPCA and all the people involved in animal welfare, I had no idea what was being done. People give away their own resources to foster donkey programs in Ireland for donkeys that worked hauling peat. These people would send the last pennies out of their bank accounts to have those animals live a happy retirement. I don't think people understand what many people in this province do for animals, how they will
[ Page 9953 ]
work every day and then spend every weekend at book sales and bake sales to raise money for the SPCA. The SPCA is very dependent on this kind of fundraising in order to exist. Yet everybody in the province is dependent on the SPCA.
[3:00]
One of the members did talk about what becomes cruelty. We see things when we are driving down the street that are not good for an animal, but probably wouldn't fall within the definition of cruelty. But if I see an animal in the back of a pickup truck, it's my duty to follow that pickup truck wherever it is going. When they get out of the car I explain that the SPCA doesn't have an excessive staff to come to scrape their animal off the road when it gets run over. So we all do things that can help with animal welfare, but we are dependent upon the SPCA.
As I said previously, it does say something when we can say SPCA and everybody knows what we are talking about, as opposed to CCABC -- the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. -- which also does good work, but not everybody knows what that means. It keeps a bit in perspective what the SPCA actually does.
It's been about a quarter of a century since changes have been made to this province's SPCA act. During that time the economy has tripled, nearly a million people have moved in, and we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The SPCA has been asking for changes since 1978. With changes in the province, they need changes to effectively protect animals and to prevent abuse. We have gone through many governments since 1978, and this government has seen that a protection-of-animals act is important. I am very proud to be a member of this government. This government thinks that other animals are equally as important as the human animal.
I would like to comment on a couple of significant changes in this act. The administrative inspection power, which is balanced because it doesn't apply to personal property.... In the SPCA we were in a real catch-22 situation, where any investigation was dependent on getting a warrant. Of course, to get a warrant you had to show abuse; you often couldn't show abuse until you got the warrant. Now there is a small section in there for some administrative inspection powers without a warrant. That is being loudly applauded over the province, again for the sake of the animals. But it's a balanced approach, as the minister said.
The other one is removing convictions from the Criminal Code. There are two areas here. Previously, as the minister said, you had to prove wilful intent. Now if there is actually neglect or abuse of an animal, you can lay a charge under a civil case. Also, I know there often appeared before, in cases before the courts -- rightly or wrongly -- a hesitancy to put a criminal conviction on somebody, because this was seen as a "heavier type of conviction." So hopefully, now that this has been removed to a civil offence, it will be easier.
I stress that the last thing the SPCA wants to do is separate owners from their animals. They want to be able to point out to owners: "This is what you're doing wrong; you can do it better. We will help educate you." If must comes to must, then you lay charges; but that is certainly not the first thing any SPCA people I know would ever do.
So this is a happy day for British Columbia and a very good day for the animals of British Columbia. Once again, the animals have been given some consideration, thanks to the political will of this government -- and particularly this minister. I would like to thank the minister particularly. I would like to thank all who wrote, and all the animal lovers and animal organizations in this province that do so much. They go unnoticed and just work to protect an animal every day. I hope each of us in our own small way can carry on to do that as well.
D. Symons: I'd like to pick up on a couple of the words the previous speaker used there. She talked about a "step," and indeed I agree that this is a small step. I think she also used the word "modest," and I think that this is a modest, small step toward the improvement of the lot of animals in the province. That said -- it's important that we do take that small step -- I just wish that it had been a little more inclusive, and that's my concern here. The minister sort of described this as an effective tool to prevent the mistreatment of animals in British Columbia and went on -- in a bit of hyperbole, I think -- to say it's the first major change in 98 years. I believe some amendments were made in 1979 that might have been as significant as the amendments in this particular act. With those remarks, I'll just continue. That may be the good side of the bill: that indeed they're doing something. The previous member made quite a bit about the fact that indeed this government is doing something.
I think the bad news is that for the largest single group of animals in the province that are exploited -- animals raised for food -- there's really no protection in this act at all. It doesn't change that aspect of it. Indeed, animals in the wild are covered by the Wildlife Act, which does give them some protection. But the animals in the food industry are not covered. The facts are -- and these were mentioned earlier by the member for Okanagan West -- that with intensively raised livestock or other institutionalized animals such as that, we have real problems in the way they're treated.
The problem is the term used -- something about "accepted husbandry practices." And what might be acceptable husbandry practices are not necessarily what humans would call humane things. If we put a human being in a cell 4 feet long, 6 feet wide and 4 feet high or something, and left that person in there for the rest of their natural life or until they were taken out and executed, we'd be screaming in public about that. But we do that to animals quite regularly in the food industry in this province. I have concerns that those animals are not given any protection at all here. There seems to be no move on the part of government to protect them. That protection seems to be given over to the federal and provincial Agriculture ministries, and in a sense, those ministries have a vested interest in exploiting the animals. That's a concern to me as well. In that sense, we find that this bill approves selective prevention of cruelty to animals. It applies to pets and animals of that sort, but it doesn't address the large number of animals being raised in the province for food purposes.
Also, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, it does not cover animals used in laboratory testing. The minister can nod to tell me if I am correct on that. I don't see anywhere that states they are included. I was trying to read between the lines, and I did not read that the intent of this act was to include animals tested in labs. In a sense it's ironic that we are discussing this act today, because April 24, when it might come up for committee stage, is World Day for Laboratory Animals. It might be interesting to some that this act does not attack that particular aspect. That could quite easily have been included here, but it seems to have been omitted. The act talks about animals for sale, hire or exhibition, but that leaves out quite a number of animals in the province.
Regarding inspection, which was also mentioned by the previous speaker, they are allowed, without a warrant, to enter premises where they think something might be amiss in the treatment of animals. The other part of that is "during ordinary business hours" of that particular business. There can be
[ Page 9954 ]
a problem with the premises, and there can be problems with unloading animals for display or hire at exhibitions. These things could be done outside normal business hours, and cruelty could be taking place then. This portion of the act does not cover that. Under another part, you can go out and get a warrant in order to investigate, but often by then the event has taken place, and the animal might have been spirited away. So it still leaves some loopholes, and even witnessed cruelty to animals isn't really covered.
We have to give the minister credit, because in a sense we have done something. The act now bases the charges on the condition of the animal. I think that is a great improvement, because as was mentioned before, now we don't have to prove the intent of the person; we simply look at the animal and see whether it has been abused. It doesn't depend on trying to prove that the person had it in mind to mistreat the animal. The other part that is important here is that it imposes a public review and accountability mechanisms on the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -- not that they have behaved in an inappropriate manner in the past. But when you expand the powers this way, I think it's a good idea that there is an opportunity for public review. On those two aspects, I commend the minister very much for bringing in those changes.
I will support the bill and will be raising more on these issues at committee stage. My only concern is that there are still a lot of animals out there that need more protection than they currently have, and I wish this government would get on to doing that as well.
T. Perry: I'll speak very briefly in favour of the bill. I look forward to voting for it. I know that the 16,000 members of the SPCA have looked forward to this bill for a long time, but many of my constituents have also written to me. It has probably been about the third or fourth leading topic of correspondence in the last two years in my riding. In an urban riding, many people rely on their pets for companionship and solace. Even though they are not closely exposed to domestic animals, they are aware of them and are sympathetic to their circumstances in the rest of the province.
I want to begin by paying tribute not only to the present minister, the member for Cariboo South, but also to the former minister, the member for Okanagan-Boundary, and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. It's not very often that private members get to achieve something concrete, and there's no question in my mind that without the hard work and extra effort of the member who's sitting opposite -- over there on the left wing of the benches, as opposed to those of us who sit on the right wing -- we might not have it before us today.
As an animal lover, this bill is important to me. The degradation of animals is just like any other kind of bullying: it's degrading not only to the victim but to the perpetrator, to everyone around the perpetrator and to our whole society. When we tolerate unnecessary and unwarranted cruelty to animals, we degrade ourselves and our whole society, and we lower the standards that affect those animals and our attitude to animals in the wild. We also increase our tolerance for the destruction of species, and we ultimately increase our tolerance for the horrible crimes, of the kind we learned about on the television news in the last few days, perpetrated against human beings.
I'll just respond to the comments from the member for Richmond Centre about laboratory animals. Although this bill does not directly address laboratory animals, perhaps it will have a salutary effect on their treatment as well. The member may not be aware that the majority of animal experimentation occurs in our educational institutions, where it is governed by strict codes. Their treatment of animals is not always perfect, but sanctions similar to those in this bill are provided by institutional animal-care committees. Their sanctions may be even more powerful, in that the abuse of animals in experimental research is very likely to lead if not to the rescindment of a research grant, to the very strong likelihood that no further grants would be issued in a very competitive research-grant environment. Nonetheless, a bill like this will increase the humane treatment of animals and will have salutary effects on the research environment.
[3:15]
I think it's a good day. I'm very pleased that the SPCA was able to work with the government. I recognize that it took a long time for the SPCA to achieve the presentation of this bill before the House. I hope we'll give it speedy passage, and I look forward to voting in favour of it.
D. Jarvis: I will be brief. I'd just like to say that my constituents have contacted me and that I have written to the minister several times with concerns about cruelty to animals. I'm very pleased that he has seen fit to answer my questions and take our suggestions and those of the SPCA forward in this bill. It's not too often that I have the opportunity to congratulate and support the NDP government on their bills, but in this case I shall.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 4. I suppose Bill 4 raises two important philosophical questions: the first is our relationship with nature and, more particularly, with animals; the second is our approach to providing service and whether or not a provincewide monopoly is the appropriate way of dealing with the variety of situations which exist across British Columbia. The first point really relates to what the fringes of the environmental movement have evolved into. We can have different attitudes to nature. I have already referred to the first, which is hostile and manipulative -- in a word, disrespectful. What used to be called the conservation movement grew largely in response to the need to protect nature from such disrespect. Many groups, from non-consumption users such as the National Geographic Society to responsible consumption users such as Ducks Unlimited and many local rod and gun clubs, have done tremendously good work in habitat protection, enhancement and so forth.
In dealing with domestic animals, the SPCA has without a doubt developed an excellent reputation. It illustrates the second attitude we can have toward nature, and that is one of respect for a gift of God over which we must exercise responsible stewardship. Whether or not a person accepts this theology, I believe most people have this decent attitude when dealing with domestic animals. It seems that some people think animals should have equal or, in some cases, even more rights than humans. In California and Florida, there are three huge pet cemeteries that mock traditional religion by making more of those poor animals than was ever intended.
The subject of pet worship has its serious side, no doubt. I would like to issue a challenge to anthropologists, sociologists and zoologists. Their studies are based on careful scientific observation. If they were from some other planet and were given earth to examine strictly by scientific methods, what would they decide was the dominant species here? Pet worship is our fault, not the fault of pets. Animals have feelings; their pain is as real as yours or mine. But man was given dominion over animals; it's not the other way
[ Page 9955 ]
around. If we forget that, strange as it may seem, I believe we will get ourselves into a lot of trouble.
Let me be very specific. There are groups in this world today that use violence to prevent the use of animals in medical testing to develop cures for diseases deadly to mankind. I do not know the details of members' medical histories, but the odds are pretty good that some of us might not be alive today if animals had not been made available for such research in the past. Some of us would have some close family members or friends for whom this would undoubtedly be true.
This business of nature worship is no laughing matter. I'm not saying that Bill 4 is a reflection of that misguided philosophy, but I do want to warn the minister that those thoughts are out there. The people who think like this may see Bill 4 as a green light to lobby for more or to step up their activities. Let us keep our love for animals in a realistic perspective and be wary of those fanatics in search of causes who latch onto the animal rights movement.
The second issue relates to how Bill 4 goes about dealing with the need to strengthen the protection of domestic animals. The government appears to assume that one size fits all. With this approach, there would be plenty of sore customers if they were running a shoe store. The SPCA is a fine organization, with an excellent reputation, but they are not the only agency capable of dealing with animals. I object to granting any organization a legislative monopoly unless there are truly compelling reasons to do so. It is not good for the taxpayers to have no choice, and it is not good for even the best-intentioned organizations to have no competition or possibility of competition in the future. I am thinking specifically about many municipalities who have animal control bylaws and pound facilities. Every two or three years these matters are put out to tender. Does this bill mean that when a municipality puts it out to tender, two contracts will be let to police the animals within the municipality? I don't think it's right.
We take for granted the results of the Industrial Revolution -- something that occurred only when parliament got rid of monopolies and regulations that dominated life in the Middle Ages. Some classical historians believe that the steam engine was invented on three separate occasions in ancient Rome but was suppressed by the political influence of the makers of sailing vessels. A socialist government might never have permitted the automobile to replace the horse and buggy, particularly if Greenpeace had been on the scene. Progress is easily defined, as happens when governments protect individual rights, including private property, and then get out of the way.
We have all heard of the tragedy of the commons: that which everyone owns, no one owns and no one takes care of. Companies that owned forest lands in the Pacific Northwest put far more into them in terms of silviculture than into the 93 percent of Crown timber. But the very people who screamed the loudest about protecting nature want government to own and run it all. The environmental movement has become the refuge for socialists, who have failed on every front to bring down the new capitalist system that they despise, although they enjoy its benefits.
These observations apply to animals no less than trees. Can you imagine the outcry over Greenpeace if Greenpeace were given power to close down logging operations where they had reasonable cause to believe a spotted owl was in critical distress? Is that not a logical extension of this legislation?
Interjections.
H. De Jong: The members say no. I'm not so sure. There is no philosophical difference between granting police powers to the SPCA to protect domestic animals and granting police powers to Greenpeace to protect wild animals.
Perhaps the NDP members from the forestry constituencies would care to ponder that in committee stage on this bill. It's a very strange kind of privatization: giving police powers to a private organization. If the subjects were people rather than animals, it would be like turning the justice system over to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. To have a say in the policies adopted, you would have to buy a membership.
The evidence is mounting that the private conservation movement, which gives market value to endangered species, is the best way to preserve them -- not the losing strategy of unaffordable protection of animals that are defined as valueless by government, but then inevitably fall prey to the very real black market. Again, caring about animals is simply not enough.
In the United States vast tracts of land have been set aside for spotted owls. The livelihoods of whole communities have been destroyed on that account. It's no wonder the lumber industry in the United States is still trying to shut it out, by hook or by crook. At least we have not gone owl-mad -- thanks, no doubt, to hefty contributions by the IWA to the NDP. But under a Liberal government, who can tell what Walt Disney movies they watch? Sentiment will not do the job of providing cost-effective protection for animals -- wild or domestic. Carried to an extreme, it will often get in the way of doing the job properly and effectively.
We must keep these factors in mind when we legislate regarding domestic animals. Everyone would agree that at present there are situations which cannot be properly dealt with. We'll always have those -- particularly neglect. One example that knowledgable people have quoted to me is when someone has food for animals but is not giving it to them in adequate amounts. But in Bill 4, police powers are extended provincewide to a single private society -- albeit a well-respected and sincerely dedicated organization.
The question is, though: what other society has similar jurisdiction extended beyond the confines of its voluntary membership to the general public? I believe that police powers ought to be exercised by the police. I doubt that the Attorney General has considered the precedent that this bill is setting. Will the B.C. Federation of Labour be given police powers to enforce the Thompson report on farms? That would be the equivalent of this piece of legislation. Perhaps I shouldn't have said that, because I certainly wouldn't want to give the Minister of Labour any ideas along those lines.
[3:30]
I would like to ask the minister to be clear about who is going to pay for the agents established under part 3 of this bill. Is this another downloading of costs on local government, which the Minister of Government Services used to complain about so bitterly when he was in opposition? How much are we talking about? Many charities have had unfavourable publicity in recent years about empire-building and excessive administrative overhead. What is riper for empire-building than a legislated monopoly? Is the reason for the monopoly in this bill administrative convenience? I don't buy that. What is wrong with local convenience and local accountability to the taxpayers? Is it just because new jobs are easier to unionize if there is only one employer? Does this bill, in effect, wipe out competition for animal control services at the local level? If so, that is a serious mistake. Open bidding is essential to real accountability, and the closer it is to home, the more accountable it will be.
[ Page 9956 ]
The bill polices farmers in determining when an animal is in critical distress. Does the minister have any estimate of the cost of this policing? The trouble with setting up schemes you can't afford to police adequately is that you open the door to discretionary enforcement. There will always be potential for favouritism and similar sorts of abuse. If a farmer was a strong critic of the government, would the government inspectors look at his animals more critically than those of his neighbours, or would you have a new make-work project, looking for problems that aren't really there?
I'm not clear what "any premises" means in this act. For example, does it include barns or barnyards? The power to enter private property without a warrant is a serious matter. Giving this power to a private society is quite alien to our legal system. Under Bill 4, apparently only the farmer's dwelling is exempted from this type of invasion of privacy. I'm not sure that the government has considered the serious ramifications in the case of a mistaken entry or damage done as a result, since the existing legislation exempts from liability those who enforce it. Under Bill 4, as in so much NDP legislation, the public must rely on cabinet regulations to be adequately safeguarded against overzealous enforcement.
There is no doubt that there are bad apples who need to be taken to task about their treatment of farm animals. As the suburbs encroach on the farming areas, a lot of neighbours haven't the faintest idea about agriculture or farm animals. They eat the pork chops, but they complain about the smell. A calf weaned from its mother may bellow all night long. Does this mean that such neighbours can complain to the SPCA without bothering to check the facts, and that the farmer will be interrupted and intruded upon for no reason? Will annoyance of neighbours be reasonable cause for entry without a warrant? Even people who mean well may not understand the signs of critical distress. How often will it happen? How much will it cost the taxpayers? If you have only one central organization, will it sufficiently recognize the difference between Williams Lake and Abbotsford? There is no guarantee.
I hope that the minister will give serious thought to the concerns that I have expressed. Right-to-farm legislation is a hot topic in some places these days, and Bill 4 may inadvertently stimulate that debate in B.C.
To conclude, the intent of the bill may have some good in it, and there is a definite need to address. But I fear the minister has been offered a quick fix, a superficially appealing solution which contains many hidden pitfalls and unforeseen consequences. Not the least of these is the dangerous precedent in endowing any private organization, no matter how benevolent, with police powers bolstered by statutory immunity from damage claims. At committee stage, I would urge the minister to substantially modify this bill.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That thought-provoking speech is based on overconcern, I think. We don't want to make too much out of some of these bills. It's not all things for all people, but it will be effective.
I now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 4, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 1994, 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. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 3.
MANUFACTURED HOME AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull: This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Manufactured Home Act. Primarily, these amendments provide the authority for the manufactured home registry to automate by putting its paper records into computer format. The manufactured home registry currently maintains information on more than 70,000 manufactured homes. All the files and records are now held in paper format and are administered manually. Automation of the registry will facilitate remote access and will also enable searches, as well transport permit applications, to be processed electronically as well as manually.
In addition to providing the authority for the manufactured home registry to convert existing registry documents into computerized form, the bill makes other amendments to the Manufactured Home Act. The bill includes provisions allowing the registrar to delegate the registrar's authority to another person for the purpose of maintaining and operating the computerized registry. The liability of the province, its agents and employees for actions taken in the performance of their duties is also addressed. It introduces limitation periods for bringing actions against the province, which are similar to those in other more modern registry statutes -- including the Personal Property Security Act, which was brought into force in October 1990. As well, the bill provides the registrar with a procedure to follow if the manufactured home is not found at the location shown on the register, and provides regulation-making powers for both the operation and computerization of the manufactured home registry.
Finally, the bill will make a consequential amendment to the Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992, so that a notice may be registered under that act to the effect that the registrar of manufactured homes is refusing to deal with a particular manufactured home file until the requirements of the Manufactured Home Act have been met.
I now move second reading.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and speak in favour of this bill, recognizing the housekeeping nature of it. Manufactured homes in British Columbia occupy a somewhat unique position with respect to housing options in the province. As the minister well knows, the owners of homes are required to rent pads from a landlord in a park. It's extremely important for there to be an updated electronic record of the location of manufactured homes to improve the flow of information. Because the homes do occupy a somewhat unique housing option, listing them for sale and resale and dealing with a real estate agent is sometimes a difficult proposition for property owners. I'm aware that many of the manufactured home owners' associations have been calling for improvements to the system of registry in this province for some time.
While I'm on my feet, and recognizing the fact that some latitude is offered in second reading debate in this House, I would point out that many more measures are affecting manufactured home owners in the province which clearly could be addressed by the government. I refer specifically to the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program, which is unavailable to manufactured home owners by virtue of the fact that they own a fixed dwelling. Even though they rent their space, they still have a fixed asset which renders them ineligible for the program. I might add that this particular
[ Page 9957 ]
anomaly creates real difficulties for single owners ofmanufactured homes, particularly elderly British Columbians who lose half their income when their spouse dies. I'm certainly aware that there has been considerable pressure on the government -- and the previous administration, I might add -- to extend this program to those elderly renters of limited income who at the present time do not qualify for Shelter Aid, but nevertheless are finding that pad rents are consuming well over half their monthly income. Again, that's a manufactured homes measure that the government needs to embrace.
As we debate this bill, the other issue I could bring to the attention of the assembly is the need to establish under the Assessment Authority a different rate class for manufactured homes. Particularly in the city of Surrey, there is considerable pressure on land available for manufactured homes because of the relatively low density. There is pressure on those owners to consider redesignating the land or applying to rezone the land to achieve a higher density. I can understand the pressure, because as land values rise and assessments rise, the economics of maintaining a manufactured home park become very marginal indeed.
With those brief remarks, hon. Speaker, the opposition is certainly in favour of any measure that improves the dissemination of information for realtors and owners, but recognizes that there are other measures the government could undertake on behalf of the owners of this type of housing. As I say, they are in a somewhat unique position, and there are more measures that could be undertaken.
J. Beattie: It's my pleasure to rise and support Bill 3, Manufactured Home Amendment Act, 1994, and to follow up on some of the important points just made by the member for Surrey-White Rock.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
It's important that the House and the public realize the context for the amendment that has been brought forward. Indeed, in context it includes also the residential tenancy amendments made last year by this government in Bill 67. These were significant amendments to bring protection to a group of British Columbians who depend on the low-cost aspects and portability of manufactured homes -- circumstances in which people can live in a domicile that has some privacy, but at the same time has little grounds maintenance and much less of a burden in taxes and other municipal structures, which are often quite burdensome on many in our communities. So I want to bring attention to the fact that the province has moved significantly to protect people who live in manufactured homes.
[3:45]
In bringing attention to both Bill 67 and Bill 3, I want to acknowledge the good work of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who last year, under the direction of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services at that time, embarked upon a study and consultation process not only with manufactured home owners in this province but with those who own manufactured home parks and who manufacture those buildings. One of the hon. member's recommendations had to do specifically with a manufactured home registry, which should be automated to facilitate computer analysis and the development of a management information system. Bill 3 is part of the completion process of that consultation that took place with the able guidance of the member forMalahat-Juan de Fuca.
Apart from the other aspects of the bill that the minister and the member for Surrey-White Rock have addressed, Bill 3 allows for on-line access to the registry. I think it's of real benefit to those of us who represent people in the interior. As you know, it's not just in the lower mainland or the large centres that people live in manufactured homes. In my community, Peachland, Summerland, Olalla to the south of me and Westbank to the north have manufactured home parks. A significant number of people live in these places. In fact, every small community in this province has one or two or three manufactured home parks.
With the on-line access come a number of benefits. First, for the convenience of all those who would be transferring or moving homes, there's immediate access to the registry. This remote access, obtained through government agents, allows a great deal of convenience in acquiring transportation permits, which is obviously an important thing if you're purchasing a manufactured home and want to move it to another community. This on-line registration saves time for both homeowners and those who might be purchasing -- and time, when it comes to a residence, often means money. It also facilitates the transference through the real estate agent who might be involved. It helps ordinary British Columbians, many of whom are on fixed incomes and living in a type of residence that is quite convenient and cost-effective.
So the member for Surrey-White Rock is correct when he says there is a need to address many more aspects for those who have previously not had the same protections as the regular type of homeowner has had in British Columbia. But it's incumbent upon the House and upon the people of British Columbia to recognize that this government, through the residential tenancy amendments and Bill 3, is moving inexorably toward a situation in which all people who abide and own residences in this province have access to fair treatment and fair representation in every aspect of their day-to-day lives.
C. Serwa: Like all the members here who have a fair number of manufactured homes in their constituencies, I'm very pleased with this type of legislation. Certainly I was very pleased with Bill 67, the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act.
Taking some latitude, I'll talk about what has happened in my constituency. Because of the agricultural land reserve and high-priced land, because of the resistance, perhaps, of the public and municipal organizations to zone land for manufactured home sites, a large number of my constituents live in manufactured homes on band land. While we're discussing this particular bill, the question comes to my mind: is this registry available and applicable to manufactured homes that are on band land, or will band permission be required for participation in the registry? What protection is in this legislation to take care of the expressed concerns? This is a fairly major concern. There are probably 6,000 or 7,000 non-native residents living in manufactured homes on the Westbank band reserve. It is affordable housing. Hopefully, the protection available to manufactured homeowners on other sites is available to home owners on band land as well.
Since the member for Okanagan-Penticton took some latitude, I'd like to say a few things as well, and the Minister of Finance can also hear them while she is here. I've thought for a long time that when co-ops or non-profit societies sponsor subsidized housing, the arrangements between the provincial and federal governments should allow similar opportunities for manufactured home sites. They could be sponsored, costs could be controlled and special concessions could be made to procure affordable land that is not
[ Page 9958 ]
fundamentally agricultural in character out of the agricultural land reserve freeze. That would make more affordable sites available. The Chair knows that I am taking some latitude, but I wanted to get that message across. As costs continue to escalate, it's a viable opportunity for young married couples and young families to acquire their first home. It's also another viable opportunity for seniors. We have to make it available and accessible, because the demand for affordable housing continues to accelerate.
On the whole, I support the philosophy and principles of the bill. We have some concerns with respect to some sections, and we will participate in that debate as well.
Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member for recognizing the Chair as latitudinal.
I recognize the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.
J. Doyle: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Doyle: In the galleries today we have a group from Revelstoke. From the alternative community education group in Revelstoke are eight students with two teachers, Ms. Rogers and Mr. Karmel. They have travelled many miles. It's a long trip from Revelstoke to Victoria by school bus, so it's not often that I get a chance to introduce students from my riding. I'd like the members to make them welcome.
F. Gingell: As the member for Surrey-White Rock stated, the official opposition will be supporting this bill. It isn't a subject that I have a great deal of knowledge about, because I don't think there are any manufactured home parks within my constituency.
I have been skimming through the bill and would really appreciate the opportunity to have the Minister of Finance deal with one item when she closes debate that I know is very close to her heart. The Manufactured Home Act requires that fees be paid on registration. I know, by scanning Hansard of earlier years, that all members of this government recognize and acknowledge that fees are another form of taxation. Seeing that the Premier has made a very clear statement that there are going to be no new taxes, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be good enough to assure us, when closing this debate, that the fees presently paid and required for the registration and issuance of permits and other things under this act won't be increased in any way during the 1994-95 fiscal year.
J. Tyabji: I rise to add a few comments to this debate. I have quite a few manufactured homes in my riding. There are a number of sites on both aboriginal and non-aboriginal land. It is an issue that has been one of the focuses of our riding office: to deal with some of the problems associated with manufactured home sites. Some of them are regulatory or legislative problems, and many of them are waste management or fee structure problems.
One thing that I'd like to say, because we're in second reading and obviously we're speaking to the principle of the bill, is that I do support the principle of the bill. I hope that the minister and her colleagues in cabinet will bring in further legislation with regard to manufactured home sites that would include greater legislation to empower some of the people who live on those sites, and more particularly, in working with the Minister of Environment, would try to deal with some of the on-site waste management problems prior to licensing the number of manufactured homes that may be on a site. I have found in my riding a number of instances where the demand for sites is so great that it often is streamlined, in terms of getting approval prior to any of the infrastructure being set up. Because of the problems with affordable housing that exist right now -- especially for young families, and in some cases for seniors -- manufactured homes are going to be a greater and greater option pursued by people in the future.
Further to the registry, I think one of the things the government should consider, which has been discussed at great length in my riding, is the release or availability of some Crown lands to put into an affordable housing scheme. In that sense, there would be some sort of private contracting; and of course, the registration of those manufactured homes would be tied into that.
I'm very curious to see this in committee stage and how this cross-references to the bill as it exists right now. Most particularly, I'm interested in what further developments there will be on the manufactured home front by the government. The way manufactured homes are being designed today, they are not as they were perceived in the past, where there was very limited appeal, I guess, in some of the manufactured homes. Many manufactured homes today are of a much wider and broader appeal and an excellent option for affordable housing and registration in the future. I assume that in committee stage we'll be able to canvass whether the registry will include manufactured homes on aboriginal land and, if so, to what extent the regulations and legislation that govern manufactured homes on non-aboriginal land will also govern manufactured homes on aboriginal land.
These are all questions for committee stage, obviously. But even though in principle one can give support for the bill -- and I think the registry is a good idea, and it's long overdue -- there would be conditions to the extent of support, depending on what kind of activities are to follow. It's a good first step, but many other steps need to be taken. In this House this is the first opportunity I've had, outside of the responses to the Speech from the Throne and the budget, to bring this issue up.
Because it is something of such concern in my riding, I encourage the minister, as this is one of the few opportunities to do so.... I'd be happy to provide any kind of information necessary on how this bill can be the first in a series of bills to perhaps carry into affordable housing, better regulation, waste management or infrastructure development for young families and senior citizens, both of whom make up a large part of my riding.
Deputy Speaker Seeing no other speakers, I call on the Minister of Finance to close debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased that the opposition has agreed in principle to support this bill. As has already been noted by a number of speakers, it's essentially a housekeeping bill that will allow us to move into the modern age of electronic registries and therefore provide much better access and services to people all around the province. I think it's clear from the nature of the debate, which went well beyond the bill itself into some other concerns with respect to manufactured homes and mobile home parks, that there's a great deal of interest in all parts of the province around issues related to manufactured homes.
[4:00]
Obviously, many members are familiar with the work that was done by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, looking at issues related to manufactured homes. There are a number of areas of ministerial responsibility in pieces of
[ Page 9959 ]
legislation which bear on this issue, and other ministers will be dealing with some of the issues that have been canvassed here in the last half-hour or so.
The member for Delta South did raise the question of fees. I will refer him to the budget document. I don't have the page number memorized, but there is a page in the budget document which lists all of the taxes which have been frozen for the next three years. He will see that fees are not part of that list.
With that note, hon. Speaker, I will move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 3, Manufactured Home Amendment Act, 1994, 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. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 14.
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull: Bill 14 amends or repeals a number of statutes to implement measures that were announced in the 1994 budget. As part of the government's continued sound management of public funds, these budget measures pay down the debt, streamline government operations and target funds to specific priorities.
The first item in the bill repeals the British Columbia Endowment Fund Act and allows for the orderly liquidation of the fund's assets. The proceeds, as members know, will be used to pay down approximately $600 million of provincial debt. This measure reflects the fact that debt reduction is a key priority for the government and the citizens of this province.
The bill also repeals the Energy Council Act, which established the B.C. Energy Council. The council was formed to bring more public input into the development of a long-range energy plan for the province and to report on specific issues. As the Minister of Energy noted earlier today, the council has done some excellent work and made government policy in this area accessible to people throughout the province. The council's report on long-term power was received by the government in May 1993, and the draft provincial energy plan is scheduled to be submitted in the fall of 1994. When that work is completed, the Energy Council's work will be completed, and in an effort to streamline government operations and become more cost-efficient, the council will be wound up after the draft energy plan has been delivered.
The bill also amends the Pension (Teachers) Act to ensure that retired teachers' Medical Services Plan premiums are paid by their former employers, such as individual school boards, rather than the government.
Bill 14 also amends the School Act to ensure that funding that has been provided to boards by the government for aboriginal and special education needs is actually spent on these target groups, and that the level of funding provided by the government for the administration of school boards is not exceeded.
The bill also eliminates the B.C. Cultural Fund special account. The interest from that special account has been used in the past to fund cultural development for the people of British Columbia. However, with the prevailing low interest rates, relying on this account would have reduced the funding that was available to cultural organizations. As a result, the Cultural Fund is being replaced by voted funding in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. These organizations depend on a stable level of funding from government, and this will ensure that.
I now move second reading of this bill.
F. Gingell: I wish to take this opportunity to speak on the issues being dealt with in Bill 14. Bill 14 starts off on the right foot by repealing the British Columbia Endowment Fund Act. Whether the members across the chamber wish to acknowledge it or not, Hansard is a clear and distinct record that it was this opposition alone that called for the fund to be cancelled and for the securities to be sold and used to reduce government debt.
I believe that the provincial government has no role in taxing the citizens of this province and then using that money to speculate on the stock market, however successful they may have been over a relatively short period of time. We all know the old adage that what goes up must come down -- and so it has. There was a major problem with that fund. I note that the government is giving themselves about one year and eight or nine months to dispose of all the marketable securities.
These arrangements are rife with conflict. The item which was a shock to me -- and, I'm sure, to many others -- when the Minister of Finance tabled the inventory of all the investments held by the fund was the discovery that the government had $118 million worth of Westcoast Energy shares in this fund. The shares, in fact, amounted to almost 40 percent of the part of the fund that is invested in common shares. We all understand that there are a number of outstanding issues, I am sure, in relation to the subsidization this government committed to in relation to the Vancouver Island pipeline. That company -- I think it's called Centra Gas -- is a subsidiary of Westcoast Energy. How this government could have believed it was appropriate for a government-controlled fund, which is different from the pension funds which they administer on behalf of other people, to hold these shares is beyond my understanding.
Also, I can't let this opportunity go by to deal with the issue that it is continually said that acquiring these shares did something for the economy of British Columbia, when in fact what happened was.... We haven't been told the price of the shares when we bought them, but their current value is $118 million, so it was a very substantial sum. When this money was shipped to Calgary to be paid to PetroCan, none of it was invested in the company in any way or fashion -- none of it was used to create jobs or economic growth in British Columbia in any way. It was used to help get one of the Liberal federal government's less successful -- and in my opinion, more inappropriate -- actions out of hock.
I am pleased that the fund is being wound up. People who have read the bill will note that the changes to the Financial Administration Act under section 5 will empower Treasury Board to retain any shares, take advantage of any rights, and exercise those rights and do any of those things that are normally the rights, privileges and prerogatives of the holder of shares. I hope that section 5, the amendment to section 36 of the Financial Administration Act, is not used to hang on to investments that may have dropped in value in the hope that they will recover.
It surprises me that they believe this section is necessary. I would have hoped that all of the marketable securities held in this fund are, in fact, marketable, so that they can be sold, and British Columbians can have the assurance that these
[ Page 9960 ]
funds are being used to repay a portion of the funds that have been borrowed to finance the spending sprees that this government and the previous administration have been intent on over the last six years. We all know that these deficits are nothing more than deferred taxes that all British Columbians will have to pay, with accrued interest, in future years.
As the minister stated, this bill also cancels the Energy Council, which was created just two short years ago with such fanfare and with statements about how necessary it was and how permanent it was going to be and about all the wonderful things they were going to do. As we know, they even gave a long-term NDP supporter a five-year contract, which the people of this province are now going to have to pay out over the next two to three years -- for however long that contract is valid for. The Minister of Energy has admitted that such is the case, but she is unable to tell this House what Mr. Gathercole will be doing in the next two or three years. It has been stated: "I know we will find something for him to do." I'd love to be adopted by this government and given $100,000 a year on the understanding that they'll try and find me something to do. This Energy Council, for all that has been said, is a failed experiment.
I really give this government credit for recognizing the error of their ways; for recognizing the mistake they made; and for recognizing the stupidity of setting up independent councils in new offices when they haven't discussed what office lease commitments have been made and what kind of furniture has been purchased and what kind of stationery has been printed -- all of which will be wasted. I give them credit for having recognized that they erred in the first place. They have had the courage to recognize their mistakes and repeal the Energy Council Act.
The next issue that is dealt with in this act is amendments to the Pension (Teachers) Act. If I may, just so that we all understand what is involved, I'd like to briefly outline what these changes will do. The minister in her opening address in second reading used the words that this will "require the employer of the teachers to pay these costs." What happens is that if retired teachers wish their MSP premiums to be paid by the government, so that they and their families are covered, they can opt to have their MSP premiums paid by the teachers' pension fund. Half of the monthly premium is deducted from their superannuation cheque, and that sounds reasonable. In the past, the Minister of Education has been required to pay the other half through their appropriation vote to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance has been required to remit those amounts, covering the 50 percent of the monthly premium costs to the superannuation commissioner, who makes the payments on behalf of these pensioners or annuitants.
[4:15]
What has happened now is that these costs are going to be paid by the school board. What this act does is increase the amount of the premium that the school boards pay into the inflation fund -- the fund that teachers and school boards now contribute to to enable teachers' pensions and superannuation to be increased in future years to deal with issues of inflation. It's going to require the school boards to make these payments. What happens now is that each teacher pays 1 percent of their salary into this special inflation fund, and the school board pays the same amount. So there is 2 percent going in to look after inflation, funded on a 50-50 basis. This amendment to the act, first of all, changes the 50-50 relationship, which has been the case in the past. This will require school boards to pay 1.13 percent in future, but the teachers will continue to pay 1 percent. Well, 0.13 percent doesn't sound like a great deal of money, but under the current education budgets and amounts of remuneration being paid to teachers, 0.13 percent amounts to $2.3 million; it's 13 percent of about $18 million.
This government speaks all the time, loudly and vociferously on every possible occasion, about what is known as downloading. We in the opposition understand the problems that downloading creates. Provincial governments in the past have taken over responsibilities for health care and welfare under clearly defined arrangements that allowed the movement of tax points to compensate and included the federal government's agreement to make certain grants. We agree with this government that this is an issue. It's been going on for almost ten years, so I think we should get it behind us, stop talking about it and start dealing with the world as it really exists. It was not only a problem for this administration; it was a problem for the administration before. It's purely and simply part of the funding squeeze that is understandably taking place at all levels of government, as governments of all stripes and all levels have not brought to their responsibilities the discipline that they clearly should have.
So the time that downloading starts is the moment that we should holler about it, and that's exactly what this is. Hidden away in sections 7 and 8 of an innocuously entitled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1994, is a downloading -- a downloading from this provincial government to the children who are in our schools. All 75 members of this House, who have dealings with, talk to and get communications from the 75 school districts in this province, appreciate and understand -- and I'm sure you do, hon. Speaker, because of your professional training and the professional role you played before you came into this House -- the pressures on schools to try to maintain the level of education and class sizes, the quality of service in our classrooms, with the kinds of funding pressures that are taking place.
So where is this $2.3 million going to come from? It's going to come right out of the classrooms; there isn't anywhere else. It comes out of school board funds. Each school board is given an annual appropriation calculated through the block funding process, and now they're going to have to take an additional 0.13 percent out of those funds. Instead of spending it in the classrooms, instead of ensuring that they do the very best and give their clients, the students, the absolute best value for the money spent, they are now going to have to set aside an additional 0.13 percent of their teacher salary cost to pay for these premiums.
The amount, in relation to a provincial government budget of $18 billion, I would have to take a little time to work out. I think it's 0.001 percent. I'll have to actually write it down to make sure I'm right. Why would they bother going through the exercise of moving this $2.3 million from their responsibility to the responsibility of the school boards when the very clear message in the budget speech was that additional funds to school boards were at a premium, and they were being specifically targeted? There was no word at that time that an extra $2.3 million was included in the block funding to enable school boards to pay this additional cost without having to make service changes in their districts. For a small school district the amount may be relatively small -- important to them, yes, but maybe relatively small. As we know, everything is in proportion. But I wonder.
If it's a teacher in Vancouver, that would not surprise me. If you think about the numbers and how much of that will be put onto the school boards in Vancouver, Burnaby, greater Victoria or Surrey, one can quickly recognize that it will probably account for a teacher. If the average salary for
[ Page 9961 ]
teachers -- at the lower end of the scale for our discussions -- is $50,000 including benefits, then I would like to suggest to you that this amount of money represents 46 teachers. The provisions in this section of the act may result in as many as 46 teachers having their employment terminated and, more important than that, having class sizes increased in those schools.
Moving on, sections 9, 10 and 11 deal with the issues that government has spoken about in their telling school boards how much money they're going to spend on administration -- and not a penny more. I'm looking forward to hearing from some of the other members of this House who have been school trustees, just as I have been. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when we come to regulations like this, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I know that school boards have not been entirely consistent in the way they keep their accounts. This will probably result in some nice extra fees being paid to auditors to sit down and think about how they can keep the books a little differently so they can carry on with what they've been doing. How can school trustees, who have been duly elected by the people of their districts to administer the funds that are allocated to education, continue to do what they believe is best and not fall afoul of this new regulation? If you turn from the amendment to section 125(1) to section 11, which is an amendment to section 133, if they haven't followed the letter of direction provided to them by the minister, what will happen? They'll cut their allocation. They can withhold funds if the board does not follow these directions by the minister.
To me, this government is going about things in a strange way. Any of us who have been on school boards, have subsequently been on other boards of governance like college boards, and now have different responsibilities in the provincial Legislature.... Our views change over the years, and we see things from a different perspective. We wonder whether there are alternative ways of organizing the governance of education that would be more logical, more sensible, more effective and more efficient, do a better job in the schools, give parents and students greater choices and allow schools to focus on certain roles other than just carrying on with the way we've been doing things in the past, with school districts in the lower mainland and the capital city region that are relatively huge in comparison to many of the more remote northern communities.
[4:30]
It bothers me that this government is going to take away from school boards the ability to negotiate with their teachers. That's an issue I have some sympathy for. I don't think that's a very simple question, and it really is not worthy of us to support or reject these concepts in a blanket fashion without recognizing and understanding all the consequences. I find it hard to understand how school boards operate now. When I was a school trustee, there was a very simple school funding mechanism in place. The school board made up its annual budget. The portion that wasn't covered under the basic education funding program -- or whatever it was called -- was assessed to the local taxpayers. It appeared on their annual property tax bill. You, as school trustees, took the heat for it. You made those decisions, and you were able to determine the way in which education services were delivered in your district, what they would be, what they would cost and who was going to pay for them. We have removed from school trustees, for all practical purposes, the ability to raise additional funds through property taxes in order to fund educational programs that they believe are important and that they have been elected to bring in. They can no longer determine the amount of money that is going to be spent in their schools. The provincial government is now beginning to tell them what amount of money they can spend on certain expense allocations.
Mr. Speaker, I assure you that it's an exercise in which some very agile minds will be brought to bear in order to find ways of keeping the accounts and of allocating things as direct education costs which, in someone else's accounts, would be clearly identified as administration costs.
I'd like to move along from there and deal briefly with the section that terminates the British Columbia Cultural Fund special account. I must admit, I sat and listened to the Minister of Finance when she opened debate on this bill, not understanding exactly what she was saying or where she was coming from. The 1992-93 public accounts start off with a statement from the minister; this set of accounts is something for which the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is responsible. She spoke about the uncertainty of funding and about interest rates going down. Well, I ask her to open this book -- if she doesn't have a copy, I'd be happy to loan her mine -- to page H70 and page H72. On page H70 it....
Maybe I should just start differently. The way this works is that the fund has a so-called balance of $20 million. The income from that $20 million, calculated on some basis, produces the revenue the Minister of Finance is required to credit to this fund. In the year ended March 31, 1993, the fund was credited with an income of $1,734,343, and they spent $1,611,812 -- which gave them an unexpended balance of $122,531. They're talking about the lack of certainty at this moment to fund these particular projects, and they had $122,531 of unexpended funds last year. Heaven forbid, if you turn to page H72 and look at the fund balance, over the years since this fund was created -- which I think was in 1988 -- they have $2,876,160 of spending available, which is not being spent. So I simply don't understand what the minister is saying. In my belief, the reason for collapsing this special account certainly isn't what the minister has stated. An amount almost the equivalent of 150 percent -- in fact, more than 150 percent -- of one year's income has not been spent.
I agree, accept and believe that our financial statements in this province are the most antiquated, complicated, difficult-to-understand set of accounts I've ever seen in my life. And I've spent 40 years in my profession. I can well sympathize with other members who come from other and varied backgrounds -- as, truly, this House should welcome -- and have problems understanding the way these accounts are kept. I agree that we should get rid of special accounts. But let's at least be honest about it and say that we're getting rid of it because it's just a bookkeeping exercise that requires us to spend money keeping books, which accomplishes nothing.
Let's also finish with the truth of this particular matter, which is that this government is looking for an excuse, I believe, not to spend the interest earned on $20 million annually. Clearly they haven't done this, because of this unexpended $2.8 million. We haven't yet been able to find out the amount of money that this government intends to allocate in this year's votes to the payments that will replace the British Columbia Cultural Fund. I don't think that it gives people who are concerned about the culture of this province -- and about the original requirements of the act that these funds be spent on projects that fit the purpose of this fund -- any assurance at all that they will be funded in the future. In the past, they knew they had the interest on $20 million. They also knew that $2.8 million that had accumulated over the years and hadn't been spent was
[ Page 9962 ]
sitting there, waiting to be allocated. Once Bill 14 passes, those assurances are all gone.
One does have a responsibility as the Finance critic to speak to these issues. I must apologize if I've kept you too long. I do hope that the minister, who I know had another matter that had to be attended to, does in fact read Hansard and go through the notes, as, before I spoke, I was assured would happen. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to this bill.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for that very thorough second reading analysis.
G. Wilson: In standing up to speak to second reading of Bill 14, let me be very clear that the members of the Alliance will not be voting in favour of this bill. On first reading it appears a somewhat innocuous set of amendments to a series of other acts that will have little or no consequence, and therefore we can deal with it like an omnibus bill. But when you look at what is contained in this bill, and when you understand the principles involved in some of its sections, clearly we cannot support it. It is interesting that often in this legislative process, and within our democratic process, legislators will be presented with a bill that is intituled as this one is -- Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1994 -- which on first reading really does not look like it has any significance to people in the province. Only when you start to get into it -- as my learned colleague, the Finance critic of the Liberal opposition, did -- is it clear that there are things which need to be examined with a great deal of concern.
Let's first of all deal with what, in principle, this Budget Measures Implementation Act is attempting to do, so that those who are following along might be able to understand how this may impact the lives of British Columbians -- after all, that is what we're here for. Essentially removing the British Columbia Endowment Fund in perpetuity is something we want to question the wisdom of. I was not in favour of its creation. I was certainly not in favour of its use, nor of the action that has been taken, and will take a look at where some of the investments in that fund have gone. We have to give some consideration to the Energy Council Act being repealed. Then we get into the Financial Administration Act, which is largely a question of asset security. Given that the Endowment Fund has turned up, we understand that something was going to be done with those asset securities.
Then we get to two of the most important issues in this act, and two of the least directed in terms of the attention people may be giving. One is the Pension (Teachers) Act, and the second is the amendments to the School Act. In principle, it seems -- certainly to those of us in the Alliance and in the opposition of this House -- that we need to review the process by which education is funded.
I'm going to jump to this section of the act because while the Endowment Fund is important, I think we need to look at the principle of what is being dealt with here. The Liberal Finance critic suggested that it was downloading, and in the instances of sections 7 and 8, I agree. More important than downloading, it's downloading at a time when greater restrictions are being placed upon school boards' ability to adequately finance the delivery of educational services in their regions. We have to look at the Pension (Teachers) Act and the implication of the increased cost to the boards -- the employers -- with respect to the delivery of service in conjunction with section 9 of this act, which is the amendment to section 125(1) of the School Act that provides for the capping of moneys allocated to school boards.
I find it interesting that this amendment comes on the heels of a legal opinion on this section that was provided to the BCSTA by Harris and Co. It suggests that when the government announced administrative capping, and that move was taken to be one which would shackle the hands of school districts in British Columbia, they sought a legal opinion. That legal opinion made it very clear that under the act, as it was currently constituted, this government was not able to do that. School districts had some reasonable security in the knowledge that allocations would be coming down in April of this year for the provision of ongoing services, which don't commence in April but have to be met on a month-by-month, 12-month basis. Notwithstanding the fiscal year-end of this government and when the allocation of moneys may be coming, they have to provide those services 12 months of the year. They had some security that they could continue through this period, only to see this government amend that act to provide for the capping of moneys through section 9(b) of this act -- which we're going to have to deal with in some detail when we get to the committee stage -- where it states very clearly: "...a maximum amount or percentage of the allocation that may be budgeted and spent for school or district administrations specified by the minister."
[4:45]
That changes the very nature by which the boards have been financing education. Let us be very clear: education is under attack in this province yet again -- one more round, one more time -- albeit by a different government. The problem we have here, and the problem and frustration you are hearing in the voice of at least this member of the Alliance, and others that are now joining with us around the province, is that we still have difficulty convincing the powers that be, the government, that the problem in educational financing is not the shackling of school boards. It wasn't the introduction of provincewide bargaining, to which members of this Alliance stood up and said: "No, that's the wrong thing to do. You shouldn't be putting in provincewide bargaining." It isn't the declaration of education as an essential service -- the removal of rights of individual teachers -- which is all of a sudden being advocated by the Liberal opposition in this province, although they didn't run on it in the last election. Nor is it bringing in heavy-handed legislation to legislate teachers back to work; I was the only elected member in this House who stood up and opposed that because it further abrogates the rights of people who have collectively bargained and taken a legal option to strike. The problem in principle is that we are financing education in the wrong manner. We have to get rid of formula-based funding for educational financing. We have to start to look toward base financing with a four-year base period, so that school districts have flexibility and autonomy in the delivery of service dollars to their districts. They can then properly administer those moneys over a long-term period.
The reason we run into difficulties and the reason this bill is wrong in principle is that it will further shackle individual school districts in terms of their ability to meet specific needs within that district. Nowhere is there any provision that even suggests what "administration" -- which is a word used here -- is. I intend to go after this in some detail when we get to committee stage. Let me serve notice right now that this bill certainly won't be going to Section A. This particular section is going to further shackle school districts, because it doesn't provide an adequate and proper explanation of administration.
[ Page 9963 ]
What is ultimately going to result because of this bill and the repeal of section 129.1.... A legal opinion provided for the BCSTA by Harris and Co. -- which I have a copy of here, and I would be happy to provide it to the Minister of Finance if she hasn't had the opportunity to read it -- suggests that the minister's authority to regulate and allocate funds is essentially limited to special education programs under section 129.1. They got rid of that section in this bill. They have now decided that they are going to implement regulations and conditions for school districts, and those are going to further shackle the ability of members of various school boards to adequately and properly finance their schools. And there is a threat and a penalty: if they don't live within those terms and conditions, a punitive financial measure will be levelled against them.
In principle, this is the wrong way to proceed. It's interesting that a bill with such a simple little title -- Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1994 -- is going to have such an enormous and profound effect on educational financing in this province. It is tucked away in this somewhat innocuous-looking document in the hope -- and I don't wish to impugn anybody's motives -- that we're not going to have an adequate and proper debate on this. We'll just slide it through, and then school districts will have to put up with it and deal with it.
The members of the Alliance are not going to sit down for this, because it is wrong in principle, just as it was wrong in principle to implement a behind-the scenes, backdoor approach to provincewide bargaining. It doesn't address the real issue of financing education in a proper way, with base financing that provides a long-term application of dollars for long-term budgetary measures.
Let me move now to matters with respect to the British Columbia Endowment Fund Act. When I was a member of the Liberal opposition and stood as Leader of the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party spoke out against the creation of the Endowment Fund and the application of dollars from that money. When we look at the document in terms of the inventory report as to what this has been used for, it's interesting to note the enormous number of dollars that have been invested in various companies around the province. We know the problem this government ran into when it decided it was going to invest in MacMillan Bloedel. A commission report was put in place, which in large measure the government is trying to respond to with this particular act. I give credit to the fact that the government listened, heard and recognized that the recommendations within that report were worth responding to. I would hope, too, that that means there's going to be a swift dumping of investments in Alcan Aluminum Ltd. -- particularly in light of the fact that this government, being a major advocate on the Nechako question, should not find itself in a conflict of interest in any way, perceived or otherwise, with respect to those investments in the fund.
In principle, we might say that this particular section of the act sounds reasonably good. We might support it, save and except for what they are able to do under section 5 of the Financial Administration Act. They suggest that an asset is an investment, and that other investments authorized under subsection (1) are transferred to the general fund from the Endowment Fund, and that the Finance minister "may retain that investment until it matures or is otherwise realized." Stay tuned, because that isn't the end of this. My guess is that the government is going to take a look at the central revenue fund and find a way for that fund to be invested in a manner that is going to be more properly at arm's length from government. My educated guess -- which I don't suppose is too far wrong, and which I'm sure the minister isn't going to discuss -- is that we can expect something shortly that will be along the lines of a provincial treasury act. It will allow this new creation to provide an opportunity to continue to have government investment, albeit more at arm's length.
In my judgment and the judgment of members of the Alliance, the use of the B.C. Endowment Fund has been inappropriate. Take a look at the $15 million dumped into the Vancouver Land Corp. -- the creation of an entrepreneur and former mayor of Vancouver, who now sits as the Leader of the Opposition. It was an absolute travesty in the use of public funds for the creation of so-called low-income housing, which was never realized, notwithstanding enormous profits. Now there's an embarkment on profit gaming, which that $15 million was used in part to develop -- whether the Premier likes to admit it or not. Hopefully we will see that those funds are very quickly disposed of, but the damage has already been done. VLC in its action and operations, with the use of public money for private profit, is something that deserves a full investigation by this government or by the Ministry of the Attorney General. I've requested that. But I stray somewhat at this point in the debate.
As the fund is divested -- as we start to move moneys into the central revenue fund -- we have to look at how this government is going to deal with those dollars as they become part of central revenue accounts. The minister might want to talk about that, because if the report of the commissioner who investigated the MacMillan Bloedel investment is going to be fully recognized and adhered to, my guess is that the government is going to have to do more than this to meet those measures. It's going to have to do more than we see in this somewhat omnibus bill. We can stay tuned and perhaps wait for new legislation to come down. Members of the Alliance will welcome that, because we recognize that the government has to be a sound financial manager. We are ready to have them as sound financial managers, provided we have an opportunity to make sure the moneys are wisely invested and that those investments leave the government free of any perceived or actual conflict of interest -- unlike what we've seen with the use of the Endowment Fund.
As I conclude my comments on this bill -- we'll have much more to say in committee stage -- let me move very briefly to the British Columbia Cultural Fund. As we discussed in estimates yesterday with the ministry responsible for culture, it's strange how difficult it was for that minister to get the additional dollars necessary to enhance and provide for the cultural evolution and development of our communities and societies in the province. As was pointed out earlier on by the Finance critic from the Liberal Party, here we have a fund with $2.8 million currently. Now if the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act is to be amended, we have to ask ourselves: why at this time? Why are we not making those dollars available to the communities and groups that are in a position now to receive and benefit?
One of the things I raised in that estimates debate yesterday was the extent to which small business -- entrepreneurs and people involved in business in communities -- directly benefits from those invested funds. So to preclude government members turning around and saying, "Here we go, the opposition wants to spend, spend, spend," there is mounting evidence, supported indeed by the minister responsible for culture, that if the moneys in the B.C. Cultural Fund were adequately and properly invested in the kinds of activities we need in this province, it would
[ Page 9964 ]
be an inducement for small business in many communities to expand and flourish. We would also recognize that this province's tourism potential increases as we make more amenities not only for those who live within our communities -- that's our first concern, of course -- but for those people who may wish to visit and spend time in them.
It is unfortunate, also, with respect to commencement -- and I want to talk about this in principle -- that this act is deemed to be retroactively effective. I vividly recall members of government, when they sat in opposition, talking about the problems of retroactive effect when legislation is brought into being, and how wrong it is for government to affect retroactively those areas where a fiscal or financial commitment may already be made.
Let's take a look at this bill. To remind our listeners, sections 7 and 8 deal with the Pension (Teachers) Act, which directly affects the ability of school districts to finance education, and sections 12 and 14 deal primarily with the B.C. Cultural Fund. Those sections are to be implemented retroactively, and that is wrong in principle. Legislation should come into effect on the date of royal assent, especially when it impacts on moneys within budgets that are already committed and being spent. Every year we hear of school districts that find themselves shackled by a government that takes precipitate action in the middle of a fiscal year, during a time when moneys are being spent or when budgets have been made and actions taken on those budgets. I cannot state strongly enough that section 9, targeting and capping allocations, in its application directly to administrative capping, is the wrong way to go.
[5:00]
Let me close, hon. Speaker, by coming to something no less important than the rest: the allocation that must be budgeted for students enrolled in aboriginal education programs. In principle, we are opposed to this. Why? Not because we don't wish to do more to make sure dollars are involved with respect to aboriginal education programs, but because educational dollars directed to aboriginal people should be administered specifically through those aboriginal communities. We have argued this -- I have argued this, certainly -- since 1987. We need to recognize that if you are going to earmark dollars, or if federal expenditures are earmarked through the school districts, we need to look at where the target groups are and provide those target groups the opportunity to directly administer and apply those funds. Simply putting in minimum amounts doesn't do the job. In principle, it's wrong, because here again we have the question of custodianship over moneys that should be directed to particular programs and targeted accordingly.
We can't support this bill. We look forward to it moving to committee stage and to hearing from the minister -- someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, and who is putting this bill forward in an attempt to solve very difficult and very real fiscal problems. And I'm sympathetic to those problems. Our concern is on a matter of principle and approach. We believe that there is a different and better way to go. Our role as opposition is not to simply attack for the sake of attacking but to suggest better ways to proceed. When we get to committee stage, we will be introducing what we believe are much better, more appropriate and more effective ways to accomplish what this minister is trying to accomplish with this bill.
I know from observation -- and clearly not from firsthand experience -- how difficult it must be for the Minister of Finance when there are huge demands for expenditures in areas such as education, and there are such limited moneys available. That's why I think the real solution to this is in the formula-funding system. That's where we should be focusing our attention, not on target capping, which is the most offensive aspect of Bill 14. For that reason alone, members of the Alliance cannot and will not support the bill.
D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on Bill 14. I want to mention that our Finance critic gave a very thorough, competent and eloquent speech on this bill. I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't follow up on at least one of the sections of this bill that I'm a little more familiar with -- section 4, the Energy Council Act, which is under "Repeal."
Not quite two years ago -- I think it was May 27, 1992 -- we on this side of the House stood up and suggested that this was going to be a waste of government money. I believe I said that this was the start of a march of 4,000 friends and patronage insiders that the government would appoint, and that this bill would appoint commissioners and a chairman who, in our minds, was questionable. Little did we know that that 4,000 I talked about would eventually end up, as reported in the paper the other day, being in excess of 12,000. How time flies!
In any event, the chairman appointed at that time, Mr. Gathercole, was hardly what you would call an impartial individual. With public involvement, the commission was to give this province an energy plan. For over ten years the appointed chairman held the position of advocate against B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission. The records certainly show that he was not neutral, which, as the Minister of Energy said at the time, it was the chairman's job to be.
At that time I think it was Bill 18 that stated that the duty of the council was to advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on energy matters at the minister's request. We felt that there was a duplication of services here, as the mandate for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is to develop comprehensive policies on energy in this province and to make reports and recommendations for the implementation of such to the minister. Surely it is a duplication of services that we are seeing before us -- especially when the minister at that time had over 390 full-time employees, plus unknown contractors on the side, to give her advice on energy policies.
We were going to spend millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars on an Energy Council that really was superfluous. Why we needed another review or council is beyond our comprehension. I would repeat that the minister's mandate as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is to develop a comprehensive policy on energy. We all know that with proper management, B.C. should have come up with a proper policy on the export of energy, etc., and B.C. should have been a net exporter of energy.
But we do not know what the council came up with, in the sense that this province now is not a net exporter. We are importing power, which is one of the greatest shames that we could see in this province. It's obvious that this administration and possibly the past administration did not handle the problem correctly. We are sitting in British Columbia with one-seventh of the world's fresh water, yet we are now importing hydroelectric power from Alberta and the state of Washington. The government has finally woken up and realized that there is no need for a council that will waste millions of taxpayers' dollars.
Another aspect we brought up almost two years ago was that the minister could not assure the opposition that this was not an open-ended appointment of the chairman, Mr. Gathercole. All members of the opposition pushed to ascertain whether it was a five-year contract or a two-year
[ Page 9965 ]
contract. But no, the minister said that it was a five-year contract. Now we find that the council is not necessary right now and that a two-year mandate was sufficient.
Where do the extra hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars go? It's obvious that the chairman, Mr. Gathercole, will be the first in line, as a friend of the NDP, to collect his $300,000. The minister, when asked what he will do for the next three years, said that he would be very busy for at least the next year. We wonder why it's only for one year. Does he go home and sit for the latter two years and collect $150,000 a year -- $300,000 of taxpayers' money -- and not do anything for it? I think the government should take some responsibility for that matter.
If Mr. Gathercole was to, as the minister originally said, get involved with public involvement, perhaps we could get him out knocking on the doors of all the pensioners and fixed-income people in this province and asking them how they feel about energy policies in this province, when the government itself puts through a forced directive increasing the hydro rates by 3.9 percent. It hasn't been passed yet, but an additional 2.8 percent is being added on, retroactive to January 1. These people are on fixed incomes, and the government says they've frozen taxes, yet we see all these hidden taxes coming in. Rates are going up, and there's no possible way of possibly stopping them. They tried to soft-soap the situation by saying they're going to repeal the Energy Council Act. I shall not go on much further, but I will say that perhaps the only positive thing of this bill is the fact that this energy act is being repealed.
I can't go on further without saying that I must admit I have to support my associate from Powell River-Sunshine Coast on his breakdown of what's happening to education in section 9 of the School Act. Having said that, I will pass it on to the next speaker from Langley.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in second reading and speak in opposition to Bill 14. I would like to direct my comments to sections 9 and 11, which deal with the capping of administration and targeted spending, and also sections 7 and 8, which deal with the teachers' pension act.
Sections 9 to 11 contain the proposed amendments to the School Act that will give the Minister of Education the powers to direct and enforce school board budgeting and spending. The proposed amendments will repeal the School Act's existing section 129.1, which currently covers special education spending by school boards, and introduce a new section 125.1, which will require each school board to budget and spend a minimum amount, set by the Minister of Education, for aboriginal and special education programs. It will require those school boards to budget and spend their allocations -- not only the minimum amount, but that minimum amount allocated for the aboriginal and special education programs. Also, it will require school boards to budget and spend a maximum amount, set by the Minister of Education, for school and district administration. Through amendments to section 133 of the School Act, it also will provide for reductions or withholding of grant payments, should a school board fail to comply with any of the above requirements.
In the fiscal framework, which was intended to be a funding formula and not a spending formula, this government has repeatedly maintained that the funding distribution system is not a prescription and merely sets out levels of service and cost factors which the province intends to use as the basis for providing a block of funds to each of the school districts. Boards are then charged with constructing budgets that reflect the needs of their particular districts. The educational finance system was revised in '89 and '90 through new legislation, and this approach was reiterated and confirmed by this government. Within the constraints of the provincial curriculum and the collective agreements with their staffs, school boards for the most part can allocate their money in any way they deem appropriate.
But with Bill 14, school boards will lose their local decision-making abilities in regard to funding allocations. The fiscal framework is a funding formula and not a spending formula. It does in fact restrict school boards in making those funding allocations. Under the cogovernance model in place in British Columbia, school boards have the primary responsibility for managing the schools and delivering the programs in the best interests of the students. For this reason the province sets the broad framework for education and provides most of the funding required, but leaves to each school board the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the schools.
[5:15]
The service levels and cost factors used in the funding system often do not coincide with actual costs. They are based on what the province can recognize as costs, given that the overall amount of funding available for education is determined by the government when it sets the provincial budget. I think everyone agrees that the formula-based funding system needs to be changed. We've seen a number of committees struck and studies done on this issue by this administration and the current Minister of Education, and nothing has been forthcoming. The present funding system cannot possibly capture all the complexities of a school operation. The formulas are just an approximation. Everyone agrees that changes are needed.
The present funding distribution system is not based on current costs. Therefore it does not accurately reflect the real costs faced by school districts or take into account general price trends in the economy or, very significantly, current costs for salaries, wages and benefits. A number of districts in this province have arbitrated settlements and are now struggling to come up with the funds to pay these increased salaries, wages and benefits that have been arbitrated by the government. The government has said repeatedly that there will be no funds available to assist with these increased costs. The cost factors are always out of date, because these costs can change after the funding level has been set for the year.
There are essential spending areas that are not recognized in the fiscal framework funding system. For example, the technical distribution group recommended that the following changes be made: service levels should recognize that there is a certain level of administrative costs associated with the district, no matter how small the district; service levels should accommodate additional costs to administer districts experiencing rapid growth and major school construction; service levels should be enhanced to recognize the significant resources devoted by school boards to the administration of the operations and maintenance areas; service levels for district administration should include provision for the management of health and safety; cost factors for district administration should be updated and should also be amended to recognize the cost of board activities related to community consultation and communications, and to recognize the level of resources devoted by districts to educational administration and the costs of managing capital planning and construction; service levels for school-based administration should be increased to include more funding for clerical support and supplies; all
[ Page 9966 ]
cost factors should be updated to June 30, 1992; cost factors for superintendents should be based on the salaries and benefits reported by the compensation fairness commissioner in May 1992; cost factors for secretary-treasurers should be linked to the superintendent cost factor; and the cost factor for school-based administration allowance should be increased.
These are some of the recommendations that came forward as a consequence of the technical distribution group's deliberations. They were presented to the Ministry of Education in November 1993. We've seen nothing come forward to address any of those issues, except Bill 14, which talks about doing exactly the opposite of what this report is suggesting.
The service levels and cost factors have not been revised for several years, and again, a number of reports have come forward that have not been incorporated. My understanding is that another report will be needed in order to deal with this. The ones that were done will not be used. We've wasted a lot of effort, money and time coming up with funding reports and studies that this government now finds useless.
The boards have also incurred, and will continue to incur, significant additional costs in the following areas that are not funded adequately. Legal services costs have increased dramatically with the new legislation that has come forward. There is a need to revise policy and regulations to meet significant and escalating changes in the system, and the cost associated with administrative officer contracts, appeals, insurance and liability issues, child abuse and human rights issues.
The ombudsman's authority. There are additional costs being incurred here because the boards must now respond to all complaints made to the ombudsman, and they must have in place processes for special appeal procedures and meet the tests of administrative fairness set out by the ombudsman. In addition, administrative time and energy must now go to meetings and hearings and to developing reports for the ombudsman.
The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has caused some additional costs to be incurred by the boards in order to comply with the spirit and intent of this new legislation. Procedures are being put in place to deal with requests for information, and files and records are being placed into records management systems, including electronic files. All are costly and time-consuming, and all require a great deal of effort and time on the part of administrative personnel.
The new directions for education have incurred significant additional costs in the design and implementation of the system changes, as well as the implementation of the new primary program, intermediate program and graduation program. The school districts are having to organize and manage procedures for input to draft documents and proposed changes. They're having to organize and administer training and professional development activities to assist the staff in dealing with these significant and fundamental changes to the curriculum, to instruction and to assessment and evaluation. They are having to organize and administer processes for parent and community involvement and collaboration. They're having to develop, organize and administer much broader and more significant communication activities to aid the public in understanding the new educational changes. There are significant costs associated with communicating with parents on the new directions in the whole school curriculum in the intermediate, primary and graduation programs.
In many districts there is rapid enrolment growth, and it's increasing the demands at both the school level and the district administration level in attempting to accommodate the growth. That's after these funding levels have been established. It involves additional recruitment, selection and hiring activity, and often reorganizing schools and school timetables, dealing with school overcrowding and arranging for portables, altered bus schedules and changed enrolment boundaries. All require a great deal of time and effort on the part of school administrations both at the school-based level and the district level.
The building and renovation of schools is another important function of school-based management. Boards are faced with increasing administration costs in dealing with the largest capital construction program that we've seen in some time. It's a program that hopefully upgrades old schools to ensure seismic upgrading and builds new classrooms and schools to meet the rapid enrolment growth. Over the past years about $2 billion in capital construction has been approved by the province. As we all know, those approvals have not been forthcoming in the required amount of dollars for a number of districts -- particularly the Coquitlam area, which has a number of schools not getting the funding to go ahead with rebuilding seriously overcrowded facilities there.
The schools, the school boards and the school districts are attempting to manage this effectively, but without the funding to coincide, this is extremely difficult. A number of schools and school boards are waiting not so patiently any longer for the capital funding required by many districts, which has not been forthcoming from this government.
Students with special needs....
Interjection.
L. Stephens: The member for Penticton, who was just saying, "Oh, I can't believe that," should perhaps go and visit his colleagues in Coquitlam, and he will find a different story. And in many other districts around the province he will also find a different story. There are a lot of districts in this province looking to have adequate education funding for their schools, and they're not receiving it from this government.
With a significant increase in students with special needs, and the move to full integration of these students into regular classrooms in neighbourhood schools, boards are faced with increasing administration costs at both the school and district levels. I think everyone would agree that special needs education is a serious issue in this province. It's one that the teachers in particular are very concerned about, and parents and students are as well. So this is one that simply has to be addressed in a meaningful way. Restricting funding and trying to target different areas that restrict the ability of schools and schools boards to manage their money in the most effective manner is just not acceptable.
One of the other areas that I want to speak to briefly on this bill is sections 7 and 8 -- those dealing with the Pension (Teachers) Act. There are a couple of things that this particular one does. I have to agree with my colleague from Delta South and our Finance critic that this, indeed, is downloading from the province to the school boards at the district level. Sections 7 and 8 contain the proposed amendments to the Pension (Teachers) Act that will increase from 1 percent to 1.13 percent the employer's contributions to the inflation adjustment account of the teachers' pension plan. It also transfers from the Ministry of Finance to the employers the responsibility for funding half of the Medical
[ Page 9967 ]
Services Plan premiums for retired teachers. This again puts more strain on the resources of the school boards to deliver the essential services of education to the students in the province, and indeed it does download costs onto the local school boards.
Sections 9 to 11 will make the funding formula a spending formula through targeting of funds and capping of administration costs, and sections 7 and 8 download more costs to school boards in the proposed amendments to the teachers' pension plan. The official opposition cannot support this bill, hon. Speaker.
A. Warnke: I don't have a lot to say on certain areas of the bill, and I just want to speak to one aspect of the principle of the bill. I think my colleague from Langley has done a superb job in some areas.
I want to elaborate on some comments made by my colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour. In reflecting upon the establishment of the Energy Council Act, it's amazing that that act was brought into being less than two years ago. Some of the rationale provided by the Minister of Energy, and some of the comments made by our side, point out a serious flaw in what the minister tried to accomplish. It illustrates a more general serious flaw in what the government tried to do and what we warned against.
According to the minister, the rationale at that time was that it was committed to the involvement of the people of the province in energy planning, and it was put in a context that the government wanted to solicit ideas from consumers, communities and environmental people on a host of matters. I now have to ask if the government accomplished that. The answer is clearly no, and the repeal here seems to reinforce that.
[5:30]
Another rationale is that this council was to provide advice to the government; it was advisory in nature, not regulatory. It was to undertake planning functions. This is interesting, because usually when a government wants to establish some sort of board or advisory council, it is with the objective of establishing such an advisory group that would take into account some long-term planning. That's what you usually establish such a council for. Indeed, all the hiring and everything that has gone along with it seemed to indicate that this was the direction it was going.
However, it's very clear in retrospect that that too has failed. Other rationales -- to report on the issues that need further public involvement -- have failed there. It was to facilitate public input in a variety of ways on a long-term energy-planning framework. Surely the long term means much more than two years. There was a reference, ironically enough, to a two-year framework in developing policy. But when the minister said that we had to develop some sort of long-term energy planning framework, then you're definitely speaking of longer than two years.
Some of the comments -- in particular, I'll start off with myself -- were that I didn't oppose the establishment of an energy council. I simply said that somewhere along the line we do need public input. I'm not enthusiastic, and I said so at the time. And I'm not enthusiastic now about the whole idea of establishing boards and advisory councils. I used the example then of the Economic Council of Canada as the model of how a council can work. And if it's along that kind of model, perhaps the government might be on the right track. But at the same time, one could recognize -- I believed then, and I said so -- given the nature of how this particular council was being set up, that there were going to be very serious problems with it. I advocated very clearly that if a government policy is to stimulate the grassroots of the public, then it must do so directly. I was rather specific at the time that what was required was a set of public hearings. Had that been the approach, it would obviously have saved the taxpayers a lot of money -- there is no doubt about it.
Secondly, if you had public hearings over a minimum of two years, surely the government would have had a clear idea of what the public wanted the future of energy to be in this province. I would suggest, too, that the public would have had a more coherent idea as to what the direction of energy policy should be. I would almost bet that it would be in a time frame of less than two years as well. My strong suspicion is that a year of public hearings would have accomplished far more than what we've seen through the establishment of the Energy Council in this act. Many reservations were expressed at the time. I recall the member for Okanagan East was pretty articulate, and correctly so, in terms of the personnel involved.
At the time, I also said that the public perception was that this was a patronage board. I'm afraid that impression has not really declined. If anything, there has been some suggestion in question period, and also from some newspaper reports, that once the Energy Council has disbanded and the act itself repealed, what will come out of this will be a reinforcement of the public perception that this was nothing but a patronage board. There certainly was a weakness in terms of the whole business of how to develop a personnel policy with regard to energy -- who should be involved and all the rest of it. So that's a second problem.
Third -- and it's a strong one that I mentioned in passing a moment ago -- is the whole principle of establishing boards and advisory councils. Unless governments have a very clear idea of how a board can specifically contribute to public policy over a period of time, using the model of the Economic Council of Canada or similar models, don't say that this is a great way of resolving public policy issues. Frankly -- and I said this at the time -- I like the idea of dealing directly with the public. If you want to know where the public stands on an issue and where it is going in the future, deal with it directly; establish a set of public hearings. But it is often a mistake to assume that boards and advisory councils are the great way of solving some of these problems concerning where public policy should go in the future.
There is a good reason for it. I said so at the time, but I guess it's really important to state it once again: any time a board is established, one injects an artificial elite. I'm going to digress on this just a little with an analysis that has developed over several years of looking at various boards and advisory groups in Canada. The pattern is this. Too often we want an idea for the direction that public policy should take, or we want to address a particular problem. What do we do? We establish an advisory board. Who comprises the advisory board? I said it then, and I'll say it again today: too often the experience in this country has been to inject an artificial elite. We draw in some person with a recognizable name and put them at the head of the board. Some would say, "Hire a party hack," or whatever. I would say that that's a possibility. But often, even if one avoids using the term "party hack," it's a question of connections: we happen to know that this particular individual thinks along our lines, so we'll put him or her at the head of this board. Whether or not that person really knows about the subject is sometimes immaterial. We have a very bad habit in this country and province of recruiting individuals and putting them at the top in the belief that all we have to do is exalt them by putting them on some sort of pedestal, and they will provide us with direction for the future and the answers to all our problems. I've seen this over and over again.
[ Page 9968 ]
I really caution both governments and non-government agencies against doing that. It's a habit that's really pronounced in our society, and it's one we have to get away from. I know where the habit comes from. There is something called Toryism. There is a benevolent elite at the top, and we just have to put these exalted people in exalted positions, and as long as the society, the economy and the government are running okay, they are entitled to be in those positions. It's terribly incestuous at times.
What happens is that people are proclaimed experts on a subject when they may not be experts at all. It does tend to breed a certain kind of self-proclaimed philistinism as well. I'm being harsh, but I want to be honest and fair as well. This has happened far too often when establishing these boards and advisory councils. We have to be very careful about our purpose for establishing a council and about who we recruit. On what basis, for how long, and for what purpose do we hire individuals?
I can't help but quoting myself -- of all people -- from the debate that took place on May 27, 1992. I would really like to read into the record what I said then. It's on pages 1881 and 1882 of Hansard:
"...why not establish a set of public hearings and really go to the public? Indeed, the public may well turn right around and say you don't need a board. I can very well anticipate that there will be members of the public who will say that if you're really seeking advice, if you're really seeking information or our opinions, seek them directly. There are many members of the public, especially on issues like energy...who do want to provide the government with some information."
I have to ask: what has been accomplished in the last two years? Was the public truly solicited for their opinions in the last two years? Did the public really provide a lot of information on the direction of energy in this province in the last two years? Unless I've missed it, I see no evidence of it. In that context, I wonder what was accomplished by initiating the Energy Council in the first place. Again, it seems to me it is a failure.
That's not the only point. I have one other quote that I would like to read into the record. Supposedly all of these groups of society will be somehow represented. I'm saying that as a result of this attempt to create an artificial elite -- which on the face of it looks like it represents society at large.... What do we have? We have something that is not democratic, and therefore that is not the real way to solicit grass-roots opinion from the public at large, as a result of trying to create this artificial elite.
The public had a view at the time -- and so did we -- that the Energy Council would not work, although it wasn't just a matter of opposing it. My remarks are very clear on that. I held a reserved judgment: "Perhaps -- let's hope -- we can make this work."
But in repealing the act I also have to reiterate some other points. In this province what we need so desperately is some sort of energy plan -- indeed, some of the aspirations that the minister put forward. We need an energy plan that forecasts. We haven't got it, but we still need it. We need an energy plan that involves the public on energy issues that are promoted. We didn't get it, but we still need it. We need a comprehensive approach on long-term power exports. The whole question of the Columbia River Treaty and, I suppose, when we look at the Kemano 2 project and some of the contentious issues involved with that.... Where are we going with regard to the perceived increase of demand on power and energy in this province?
[5:45]
Those kinds of long-term power export questions and the power needs of our own domestic economy are yet to be addressed. I see no reason to repeal the Energy Council Act. But in doing so, I hope that some of these questions that were posed then will still be addressed -- and addressed thoroughly. The act hasn't addressed them for the last two years, making one wonder why we had an act passed in the first place. I think it does reflect somewhat on the minister.
But the question still remains: what is our long-term energy future? What are we going to do about it? We have on the books, of course, a number of proposals and projects that will come before us. Kemano 2 is one of them. It's put on the table suddenly, and in a very short time political parties -- governments and opposition parties -- have to come to terms with that in a very short time frame. That kind of incrementalist approach -- or crisis management, if it keeps on going the way it is -- creates potential problems for all of us. So what we desperately need, of course -- and this was one of the aspirations of the act -- is to get some sense of the projects and proposals. What is their direction? How are they going to contribute to energy needs in this province?
But all of this is in a context as well. How is the public interest to be protected and served? This was the purpose of the act. We didn't see it in the last two years; therefore we're unsure of it now. Repealing this act does not necessarily resolve this problem. As a matter of fact, we're back to square one at a later time, and we must address this once again.
We need a clear policy that establishes a settled policy climate, especially when we start dealing with developing power for our own domestic needs and for export purposes. I believe that was one of the aspirations of the minister, who had good intentions in bringing forth the act. But I want to see that, and we haven't seen it in the last two years. That's our assessment. The act was brought in in good faith, yet we haven't seen any results of it in the last two years. It's quite obvious, when you have to repeal this act. On that note, it has been a failure.
Therefore I beg again: what we need is a settled policy climate for our energy and power needs in the future and for our exports. Let's hope that somewhere along the line the Minister of Energy doesn't simply repeal the act and say: "That was a mistake; we'll pay off our good buddies." Let's hope the Energy minister goes back and really does a thorough job this time to make sure that our fundamental problems of power and energy will be addressed. If that minister cannot do that, I suggest the minister should step down as soon as possible so we can put a minister in place who has a sense of direction and doesn't worry about establishing another board or advisory council that isn't going anywhere and doesn't really address the needs.
I have my fears that the Energy minister hasn't learned her lesson, but it's possible. I hope the Energy minister learns the lessons that have been put forward by us, by the public and by experience, and that she re-examines where they're going. Maybe it's a good lesson for all ministers, present and prospective, and on our side as well: be very careful what kind of act you put in place. What is the purpose of establishing an advisory board? For some of the reasons I've mentioned earlier, this whole area of how we establish advisory boards has to be thoroughly re-examined. I think the public wants it as well. The public is fed up with the idea of establishing a number of what they see as artificial boards that do nothing more than establish some vague directions for the future -- and are pretty good places to pick up an extra buck for your friends.
I do notice that the hour is getting late. I move adjournment until the next sitting.
[ Page 9969 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta South on a matter.
F. Gingell: Earlier today, during the course of the debate....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. If you're not standing on a matter....
F. Gingell: I wish to withdraw a statement that I made earlier.
The Speaker: I will permit that after the question, hon. member. The question is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
F. Gingell: During the debate on Bill 14 earlier today, I made what I now consider to be an inappropriate statement -- particularly on a day when we had second reading of Bill 4, which dealt with the prevention of cruelty to animals. I wish to withdraw the statement that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I wish people to know that I am not in the habit of skinning cats. I don't approve of that.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]