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)
MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 10
[ Page 11771 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. B. Barlee: Visiting in the gallery today is Mr. John Adams, who is with the heritage properties branch. He's accompanied by his father-in-law, Dr. Richard Christiansen, who for many years has been actively working with the New York State Legislature. Would members please accord them a warm British Columbia welcome.
G. Wilson: I'd like the House to welcome 21 grade 3 students from Monterey Elementary School in Oak Bay. This class includes Jamie Housser, the son of the nationally renowned broadcaster, Mr. Housser. They are accompanied by their teacher, Kathleen Ernst, and a parent, Jennifer Foord. Could members please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: As a former graduate of Monterey, and on behalf of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I also want to welcome the students here today. I would also have the Legislature note that earlier in the day a group from St. Joseph's School in my constituency of Saanich South also visited the precincts. I would like the House to make both groups very welcome.
N. Lortie: I rise on a very serious matter that makes some of the work we do here pale into insignificance. Tomorrow is the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals, and at this very moment our team is winging its way to New York City. I'd ask that as a group, in rare unanimity, we congratulate this team and wish them another great and successful game -- and the Stanley Cup. Go, Canucks, go!
D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I assure my colleagues that I'm not here to argue for equal time on behalf of New York. Instead, on your behalf, I simply want to offer greetings to a delegation of the Association of Parliamentary Librarians in Canada. They're meeting here in British Columbia -- in Victoria, as a matter of fact -- for the first time ever in the association's history. These are people, of course, who we all know very well and on whom we rely for much of the service provided to us as members. Seated in the gallery is Joan Barton, our own chief librarian in Victoria, and a number of her colleagues from across the country. I'd ask my colleagues to please give them a warm welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: I would similarly like to express my welcome to the parliamentary librarians and recognize the important work they do.
I would also like to introduce to the House 25 students from Our Lady of Perpetual Help School in Point Grey, Vancouver, and their teacher, Marielle Flynn, and the chaperons who have come with them. Welcome.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: I have a question for the minister responsible for gaming. The Premier has said there will be a full audit of the books of the New Democratic Party. Could the minister assure this House that that audit will also include allegations contained in the search warrant served on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I will take that question on notice.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The hon. member has a further question?
W. Hurd: In the search warrant served on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, there's a letter from Dave Stupich. It says:
"...the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Harewood Social Centre and the B.C. Tomorrow committee exist to further the political interests of the New Democratic Party. All of them have provided funds over the years for the use of the party, for donations that have been made in the name of the party.
"As treasurer of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, my responsibility has been to record financial transactions about the above groups and the Nanaimo NDP Association...."
Again I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Can he assure us that the NDP books will prove this, and that the AG and the government will support the call for a full public inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the society's appearing to exist solely for the purpose of raising funds for the New Democratic Party?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This issue was well canvassed last week; the Attorney General and the Premier answered this question many times. As the hon. member knows, the law is clear. The issue is before the courts, and it is inappropriate for us to comment on the issue the member raises today.
The Speaker: Do you have a final supplemental, hon. member?
W. Hurd: The minister should be aware that the balance sheet of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society was examined by Ronald Parks, a forensic accountant with the firm Ernst and Young. Mr. Parks advised the RCMP that several balance sheet entries were "a little unusual for a non-profit society." One of those entries was a balance owing of $30,000 under the heading of "MLA accounts."
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
W. Hurd: And another was $26,000 under "NDP project advances." Doesn't the minister agree that these "unusual" entries in the balance sheet create no doubt that there should be a full public inquiry into this fiasco in Nanaimo?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I understand what the opposition's viewpoint is. But they also know there is a legitimate legal framework and process currently underway. If the Liberal opposition wishes at its whim to avoid the legal process in British Columbia, so be it. We will abide by the legal process. The courts are dealing with the issue, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The minister knows full well that the special prosecutor has recommended that a special investigation take place and that all the pertinent documents be released. My question is also to the minister of games -- I'm sorry; minister of gaming. The affidavit sworn by Corporal Forster in May 1993 concludes that that officer of the RCMP had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the NDP association, between the dates of January 1, 1973, and August 12, 1992, did cause the British Columbia lotteries
[ Page 11772 ]
branch and the public gaming branch to act upon forged documents.
My question to the minister is: as the individual within the NDP government responsible for administering that branch of government, will he not take the initiative and recommend to the Premier that his government has no alternative but to initiate a full public inquiry into this matter?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This issue was canvassed extensively by the opposition and by the Premier and Attorney General last week. I want it known that the B.C. Gaming Commission and the gaming branch have processes and policies in place, and that monitoring is done.
In terms of the issue before the courts, the opposition knows I cannot comment on those issues. If that member, who is a lawyer, wishes to disobey the laws of the province, that's on his head. We will obey the laws of the province of British Columbia, and the courts will proceed.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: What's clear is that this is a government that is content to hide behind the law when it's convenient to do so.
The Speaker: Question.
M. de Jong: My question to the minister is: can he tell this House how any applicant within the province can have confidence approaching his ministry and his government, knowing full well there are these shady dealings, as alleged by Corporal Forster, which this government refuses to act upon and refuses to investigate in a public way?
Hon. R. Blencoe: That member knows there is detailed process for licensing, monitoring and review, and regulations that are carried out by the B.C. Gaming Commission and the gaming branch. They do a good job. They monitor, and they are there for the people of the province.
In terms of the issue referred to, again, the courts are dealing with the issue, and we will not comment on that process.
[2:15]
R. Neufeld: In the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, I'll ask my question of the Minister of Government Services. Jacques Carpentier has today alleged that a number of ministers and government MLAs know more than they have been letting on about the NCHS charity ripoff. Why won't the government muster a little moxie and immediately launch a full public inquiry into this matter?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is referring to lots of issues and questions that have already been raised by many members. I would again remind that member that the issues he raises are before the courts, and that we will allow the courts of British Columbia to proceed without undue effect from this House.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: A fundraising arm of the NDP has pleaded guilty to bilking Nanaimo charities out of $200,000 -- some of which may have been laundered to members of this government. Ace Henderson has said that the only way to have this dirty laundry sorted out is through a full public inquiry. Will the government now accept Mr. Henderson's advice and launch an independent inquiry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Once again, I refer back to Hansard and the many comments that were made. The process will take place. The courts have it, and if the accusations you make are accurate, then the courts will deal with those issues, hon. member.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: This government has had over a week to get up its courage to come clean. The government member for Nanaimo has conceded that he may well have benefited from the Nanaimo charity ripoff. Why is this government so afraid to do the right thing and launch a public inquiry? Is this thing so corrupt that the government is afraid to face the music through a public investigation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Once again, the courts are hearing the case, and the issue will be resolved in the courts.
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the same minister. I have in my hands the entire transcript of the cabinet appeal hearing that the Minister of Energy held in granting the 18 new licences to Kimber Cabs, a longtime NDP friend. We note that on three separate occasions the minister involved cut off Paul Gill when he attempted to explain his telephone calls to the Premier. Is that minister, as a member of the appeals board, not the least bit curious? Does he not wonder why the Minister of Energy went out of her way to such a great extent -- three times -- to stifle Mr. Gill when he tried to explain his links to the Premier's office regarding Kimber Cabs?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The minister that the member refers to made a statement in this House and explained the situation. She weighed all the evidence, pro and con, and she made her decision. That's what the appeal process currently is about. The member knows that, and he knows the statement made by the hon. minister.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly there was some information that the minister didn't want to weigh, and that's what we're trying to get at. Is it information that the minister refused to hear? I refer the minister to page 37 of the transcript. Mr. Gill said, "But Madam Chairperson, I only want to illustrate that the Premier...." and the Chair said: "I really think that we won't hear anything more on that."
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister explain why the Minister of Energy went out of her way, time after time after time, to stifle Mr. Gill from explaining his links to the Premier's office in the granting of 18 licences to friends of the NDP?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think this issue has been well canvassed. Statements have been made by a number of people on this side of the House. The member knows the appeal procedure and the process.
[ Page 11773 ]
However, if I may, the member brings up some details that I'm not familiar with. Obviously I will take the question on notice and refer it to the minister.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Does the hon. member have a different question?
G. Farrell-Collins: I seem to find the minister answering the question and then taking the question on notice afterward. I will proceed.
I would assume that any reasonable cabinet minister would have been curious about Mr. Gill's intervention and would have been curious with regard to the letter. Obviously, if Mr. Gill's claims regarding this are true, we have a serious problem. If they are not true, then I would assume that the minister would like to clear the air. Doesn't that minister, as a member of that cabinet appeal process board, find it extremely curious and extremely unnerving that the Minister of Energy tried to stifle Mr. Gill on three separate occasions?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The licence being utilized by the opposition is quite acceptable, I suppose, from an opposition's point of view. On this side of the House, we know the process that is in effect; we know the letter of the law in terms of the appeal procedure. The minister weighed the evidence, hon. member, and made her decision. You may wish to make it known otherwise, hon. member, but the minister made her decision and her recommendation to cabinet.
CONTRACT WITH FORMER HYDRO CEO
D. Jarvis: The official opposition has just received a copy of the new contract, or deal, struck between the government and their good NDP friend Mr. Eliesen. We note that the province is a signatory to this new deal, because the province is now on the hook for the entire amount of the contract that was originally between B.C. Hydro and Mr. Eliesen. I would like to ask the minister for gambling if he would please explain why the government is guaranteeing the obligations to Mr. Eliesen?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member should at least have the courtesy to address the minister by his portfolio. Would the Minister of Government Services please respond.
D. Jarvis: My question is to the Government House Leader.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to try to respond to the member's question. Sitting here listening to these questions, it strikes me that it is clear that the opposition is not only not concerned with due process, they're not concerned with issues. If they were, they would raise issues such as the environment. But since all they care about the environment is mining the Tatshenshini, I guess they don't want to raise issues. If they wanted to ask a question about schools, I suppose they could ask a question of the Minister of Education. But since they oppose any capital spending on schools, they'd prefer to continue this insubstantial, unsubstantiated line of questioning; and we'll just sit here and listen to them continue to go around in circles while we do the people's business.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: Most of our questions are to the ministers who aren't here today, so that's why we're having a problem.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
D. Jarvis: How we got into the subject of mining responsibly in B.C., I don't know. In any event, section 10 of this new sweetheart deal promises that the government will guarantee full performance payments and all the obligations due to Mr. Eliesen for this new pet project he is on. Could the minister explain to the people of British Columbia why the province is going to get stuck with the costs of this new venture by Mr. Eliesen and why we are paying performance bonuses before the duties are performed?
Hon. A. Petter: It's a little sad that we have an opposition.... Despite the fact that six ministers are here ready to answer substantive questions, there's not a substantive question over there to be asked of any of the ministers here. While the Premier is off with the Attorney General and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs signing an historic agreement with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en -- setting aside years of litigation in favour of negotiation -- they have no substantive question to put to this government, and for that reason....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to comment on a matter of privilege raised by the question from the member for Peace River North.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. D. Marzari: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Education.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, it's very difficult for the Chair to hear the minister. Would you please control yourselves.
Please proceed.
Hon. D. Marzari: In the House, I call second reading on Bill 50.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood: Bill 50 is one of a number of government consumer protection measures that protect
[ Page 11774 ]
consumers from unfair market practices. Bill 50 extends greater consumer protection to B.C.'s 450,000 tenant households. It levels the playing field in the rental market by providing consumer protection to individual tenants while maintaining and enhancing safeguards for landlords.
The philosophy behind this bill is very much a Better Business Bureau philosophy. Good business practices are supported by strengthening communications. Landlords and tenants looking to take advantage of their positions are held accountable by a fair and balanced law. Currently, protection against unjustifiable rent increases in the rental market is available in four other provinces -- providing protection to almost 70 percent of all Canadians.
Bill 50 provides a balanced and affordable approach to address the needs of the B.C. rental housing market. For the first time in ten years, tenants and landlords will have a system to resolve disputes over unjustifiable rent increases. Bill 50 enhances the role of the residential tenancy branch to provide information to both parties and clear up any misunderstandings. This first step will help reduce the need for the arbitration process.
[2:30]
The unique features of this legislation make it the most balanced and administratively effective of all the systems we examined. To begin with, the system is only triggered when a tenant believes they have received an unjustifiable rent increase. This system is tenant-based -- it means that the system governs the individual tenancy, not the unit. When there is a new tenant there may also be a new rent. This means that new rental constructions are not covered. Bill 50 recognizes that each landlord's business is different, that each building is unique, and therefore it has flexibility to ensure business viability. This rent review system is an affordable alternative, as it can easily be integrated into the residential tenancy branch's existing dispute resolution system.
Both landlords and tenants wanted a system that was targeted to abuses and to discourage frivolous complaints. Bill 50 puts in place a system that provides for this protection -- at two different points. At first contact, the system encourages and supports tenants and landlords to resolve their differences before arbitration is required. Currently, less than 4 percent of tenancies are involved in arbitration, and while arbitrators at the second point in the system have the authority to deny frivolous complaints, our expectations are that the 4 percent rule will continue to hold.
Concerns about unconscionable rent increases are longstanding. In recent years civic leaders, tenant groups and even some landlords have called for a provincewide crackdown on unscrupulous landlords. In fact, the current Leader of the Opposition, Gordon Campbell, while mayor of the city of Vancouver, issued repeated calls for the province to enact a rent review process to protect tenants from unjustifiable rent increases. After the framework for this system was announced last December, we sought the advice and knowledge of over 90 landlord and tenant groups across the province. We asked tenants and landlords to put their experience and expertise to work by telling us what the model should look like and how it should be run. The input from these meetings helped guide the development of the rent protection system before us today.
Under Bill 50, landlords will be required to use a standard, plain-language notice of rent increase which contains information on the reason for the proposed increase. Tenants who feel that the rent increase is unjustifiable can then initiate the process by contacting the residential tenancy branch. The residential tenancy branch staff will provide both parties with information regarding their respective rights and responsibilities under the act and what actual business expenses may be passed on. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute during the information stage, the dispute will then be resolved through binding arbitration by a neutral third party. After the tenant has filed, the landlord must disclose and justify the increase based on the building's income and expenses and other cost factors established by this bill. The arbitrator will then use the prescribed formula to calculate the rent increase that may be passed on to the tenant.
The formula will consist of criteria defined in Bill 50. These criteria allow a landlord to capture increases in operating costs. For instance, the landlord can pass on to the tenant increases in insurance and property taxes, increases in heating oil or electricity, or increases in the cost of basic maintenance. The landlord is assured of a reasonable return on their investment and may take into account increases or decreases in interest rates. Landlords will be able to pass through to tenants costs incurred for capital expenses, such as major repairs for a new roof or for upgrading a heating or plumbing system. The formula will ensure the amortization of these costs over the life of the capital improvement. This formula will contain the important feature of ensuring sensitivity to actual business costs incurred by the landlord. The formula will be fine-tuned over the summer months and will be discussed with landlords and tenant representatives prior to proclamation.
The Residential Tenancy Act currently requires 90 days' notice for rent changes. To ensure speedy resolution, Bill 50 contains the statutory requirement that disputes be resolved within the same 90-day period. For the first time in ten years, tenants will have the right to remain in their home during that dispute period.
During our consultation process on rent protection, the issue most often identified as a problem by tenants was the lack of maintenance and repair of their rental unit. We also heard that with respect to the current act, if landlords chose to ignore the repair order issued by an arbitrator, tenants had little practical recourse. This bill ensures that landlords meet their statutory obligations to carry out repairs and provides for more effective enforcement of the existing repair provisions in the act. If the landlord does not comply with the repair order, arbitrators, through their ruling, can allow the tenant to do minor repairs and deduct the cost of those repairs from their next month's rent, or an arbitrator can reduce a tenant's rent by the appropriate amount until such time as the landlord complies with the outstanding repair order.
Tenants also spoke to us about the need to ensure that repairs necessary to their health and safety were carried out in a timely manner. When it's 20 below zero in Fort St. John and the furnace is out of order, the tenant must have some way of ensuring that their heat is quickly restored. If the landlord's emergency contact is not available or does not respond, the only option available to the tenant under the present legislation is to apply to an arbitrator for a repair order. In a true emergency, this is clearly not a reasonable option for a tenant. Bill 50 will enable a tenant to deal with these emergency situations where the landlord's contact does not allow the tenant to make the emergency repair and deduct the cost of these repairs from their rent.
Those situations that constitute emergency repairs are narrowly and clearly defined in this bill and are limited to those that are urgent and necessary for the health and safety of the tenants. The landlords will have recourse under this bill to apply for arbitration if repairs were not of an emergency nature or the repair costs were excessive. I should
[ Page 11775 ]
emphasize again that all these new repair provisions are directed at landlords who do not carry out their statutory obligations to maintain rental premises in a reasonable state of repair. Reasonable landlords are unlikely to be affected by these new provisions.
Bill 50 also responds to the concerns of tenants, and in particular female tenants, who need more effective protection from landlords who unlawfully enter their suite. Currently, the Rental Tenancy Act requires 24 hours' notice before a landlord enters a tenant's premises. In instances where landlords have flagrantly continued to break the law, the arbitrator, upon application, may allow the tenant to change the locks on their door and retain the only key. This will improve tenant security and assure tenants the right to quiet enjoyment of their premises. Again, the great majority of landlords who act responsibly and within their legal obligations will not be affected by this change. Only the few landlords who continue to ignore the laws concerning entry will be penalized. We expect that this amendment will result in a much higher rate of compliance with the act's entry provisions.
Many years ago, the Better Business Bureau recognized that bad business practices hurt everyone -- consumers and business alike. While these amendments support good business practices, we recognize the need also to hold tenants accountable for their actions. Bill 50 will respond to concerns raised by landlords. In particular, landlords will now be better protected from deliberate damage to their property by tenants. Wilful damage to residential property will now be an offence under the act. Tenants who wilfully damage their landlord's property will be subject to up to a $5,000 fine. These changes allow residential tenancy officers to actively support the landlord in resolving these situations.
In addition to the above, Bill 50 also makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information in an arbitration hearing. It raises the maximum fine payable to $5,000, makes a tenancy agreement entered into by a young person enforceable, and strengthens the existing requirement for municipal approval in order to enter into residential leases for more than 20 years. In addition to those above, it makes it an offence for a landlord to threaten or harass a tenant to deter them from going to arbitration and makes it an offence to discriminate on the basis of source of income.
These amendments are incorporated into the Residential Tenancy Act, which already provides a wide variety of rights and obligations to both tenants and landlords. The proposed legislation provides balance. It has been carefully designed to introduce important protections for individual consumers should they need them and does not impose unnecessary regulations on the majority of landlord-tenant relationships.
G. Campbell: This is a very important bill before us today. I know the minister referred to a couple of my comments from the period when I was mayor of Vancouver and we were in significant difficulty with regard to the rental situation. Some key points, however, have been missed in this legislation. They are points which we cannot miss if we're going to pass a piece of legislation which is not going to harm the rental market and the tenant and do exactly the opposite of what this minister is claiming that this legislation will do.
There is no reference whatsoever to the marketplace in this piece of legislation. I know and understand that this kind of legislation will almost guarantee that individual tenants will have annual increases in their rents; it will increase the cost of government infrastructure substantially; and it will not provide the kind of security that tenants are looking for. One of the things that I believe is essential for us to recognize when we deal with any group, whether they are the tenant or landlord groups, is to learn from and understand their experience -- if we are going to create and craft legislation which meets some public objectives. I don't believe this legislation starts to do that.
The primary concern that we have to have in regard to housing markets in British Columbia is assuring that we continue investment in the housing markets so a supply of rental accommodation is made available. When you overload the rental market with regulations in which there is no connection back to reality, you have a great deal of difficulty in encouraging that investment. In the long term you shrink supply, and as you know -- and I know your constituents would tell you -- as you shrink supply, costs and rents go up. Then you have the kind of market escalation which we saw three and four years ago in British Columbia. It causes a great deal of concern among landlords and tenants.
There is no question that we have to have legislation that lays out a framework that encourages people to be socially responsible, both from the landlords' side and from the tenants' side. I would concur at least with one thing that the minister said, although I would raise the percentage. I think 95 percent of all landlords do an excellent job for their tenants, and 95 percent of all tenants are good tenants for landlords to deal with. When we are dealing with this legislation, however, it seems to me that we have to recognize a couple of key points.
First of all, when you look at the regulations that have been put into the bill and the opportunity to impose rent limits, the fact of the matter is that that will deter investment. We have seen time and again how these arbitrators -- as we're now calling them in this legislation -- without any direct connection to the market, come and impose what they think seems to be fair at the time. Whether there is a market return or not does not matter. Investment will therefore flee that market, and we don't want to discourage investment in rental accommodation. We don't want to discourage investment in housing in British Columbia, unless we want to create yet another housing crisis in this province.
Therefore I think that this bill requires a great deal of consideration with regard to how and what kind of limits are going to be placed on rents and rent increases that may be recognized in the marketplace. Proposals made in the past have suggested that you can indeed come up with a definition for unconscionable rent increases, but they should be revolving around the marketplace itself.
What are the cost components that go into rental accommodation? They are great and varied, and many of them are generated by government today. Certainly many of them have been generated by the costs of money and taxation throughout the province. One of the concerns that I have with this legislation is that at the drop of a hat, a tenant can say: "I don't agree with that kind of rent increase." That creates a huge bureaucratic infrastructure that is going to be costly and will add not only to the load of landlords but to the load of British Columbians generally -- and ultimately also to the tenant.
[2:45]
Another concern I have with this bill is that I believe we have to take full consideration of the situation with regard, once again, to the investor in housing. When you have the security provisions that have been suggested here, without any kind of hurdles to overcome, one of the concerns -- and it has been raised already -- is the whole issue of financing units and ensuring rental accommodation. Although I recognize the ideological thrust of an argument that says landlords are always bad, the fact of the matter is they do
[ Page 11776 ]
need to have security in terms of their investments and being able to access financing. If there are parts of this bill which undercut and erode their ability to do that, I can again assure you that that will drive legitimate landlords out of the marketplace and will not secure or eliminate the bad-acting landlord that I think the bill has to be focused on.
Certainly we want to protect tenants, but we have to be concerned with a number of areas of protection. I have already heard from fire officials and insurance officials, as well as from individual landlords, with regard to the stipulation on locks. Ironically, one of the reasons for having public access is to secure tenants who happen to be in trouble or who have concerns. It seems to me that we have much work to do in this bill with regard to this so that we can ensure that we are not jeopardizing not just the investment but the tenant as we try to do something that protects them for the future.
In general, I believe that we are creating a problem at a time when there is very little in the way of problems. Rather than proceed with the bill as it is, I would prefer that it be withdrawn and for the government to go back and work with, listen to and learn from those who are investing in housing so that we can encourage that kind of a marketplace in British Columbia.
Rent controls do not work. The minister can complain and say, "These aren't rent controls," as much as she wants. But if it looks like rent control and it acts like rent control, it is rent control. It will be destructive to the housing market and to tenants. It will ensure that they have rent increases month after month and year after year. It will ensure that we have a shrinking housing supply at a time when our population continues to grow.
We have much work to do in this bill, and I cannot support it in its current state. I would hope that the minister will take the time to learn from the community of investors in housing how we can come up with a public policy that will protect tenants as well as the housing market so that we can keep rents as affordable as possible for everyone.
V. Anderson: Having discussed with the hon. minister some of the issues in Bill 50 during estimates recently, I am very aware of her concerns. I share many of her concerns about the difficulty of many people in the community -- both landlords who are attempting to rent and tenants who are renting. As a renter I have some personal experience, but I have also been very fortunate in the landlord-tenant relationship. It has been a very cooperative one, and with that I am very pleased. From my previous involvement in the community I am very much aware that there are many horror stories of people in the community -- and they can only be described as horror stories -- on both the landlords' side and the tenants' side.
I agree with the previous speakers that the people involved are not many in number. Yet for the individual who is involved it's not the number that's important, it's the individual reality of what it does to you as an individual and as a family member. In many of the situations where these horror stories arise, they are in areas where there are many other difficulties as well -- difficulties with income, family relationships, health, employment and jobs. A whole host of circumstances come into play when we are talking about this particular situation. There is also the concern that many of the people forced into housing situations are on low income. They do not have enough income, or even with their government subsidy they do not get enough income to put them in decent and reliable housing.
One difficulty that must be taken into account.... This bill must be taken in the context that the housing situation in our province is not in a healthy state and that we need an overall housing plan. We need a broad plan that the community at large is aware of and are participating in. From our discussion in estimates I am very much aware that the minister has some plans. But since they are future plans she was reluctant to go into detail about them, except to say there would be upcoming announcements. That's not good enough. The public must have some awareness of the context in which we look at a bill when it's brought forward. It's that overall plan into which each part of the action of government must fit, otherwise we have a piecemeal plan which begins to contradict other parts of the overall plan, and it creates a great deal of uncertainty within the community.
When I first read through this bill, recognizing the desire of the community to have many of their problems overcome and the desire of the ministry to respond to those problems and cooperate with both landlords and tenants who are having difficulty in the community, I was philosophically in favour of the direction in which I think this is intended to go. But upon reviewing it practically, I had to come to a different conclusion and decision. We'll be dealing in committee stage with some of the details. There are uncertainties throughout the bill that make it difficult to support in practical reality.
In this bill there are changes to other acts, such as the Infants Act and the Human Rights Act, that are out of context with those acts. The Human Rights Act is being reviewed in total by the government, so I'm not sure that we should be revising it in this bill before we have the broader picture and those particular concerns have come forward. Whether or not I am in favour of the particular direction, it is still important that we not deal with these out of context, because we get into unseen difficulties when we do that. So they must be considered within that context.
The minister referred to the Better Business Bureau. I'll wait to see Hansard as to whether that's better business bureau with a small "b," or whether she was formally trying to suggest that the Better Business Bureau, in the organizational sense, had given its endorsement to this bill. I doubt whether they have endorsed the bill. I think that it was unfair to imply that in her presentation. I would question that.
When we look at the reference to the Infants Act, I agree with the principle the hon. minister is trying to get at. But if you read it just as it is, it means that a ten-year-old, a 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old are, contrary to the Infants Act, accountable for their acts, regardless of who has put them up to it or who is using them as a shield. I understand and respect the fact that many people who are not eligible under the present Infants Act should be eligible to make their own statements. I agree with that. But the way it is written in this bill leaves that completely unattended to.
When we talk about definitions within the bill, those are yet to be decided on. What is income? In a number of cases the definitions -- such as what is income, what are expenses and what are justifiable and reasonable expenses? -- have all been left out, to be decided by someone else later on. They are so significant with regard to the decisions that have to be made that they can't be left open-ended and unpredictable. Had they been defined in the bill itself and had the regulations, which are so crucial, been part of the bill so that we'd know what they are, then we could understand. Without those, it's like signing a blank cheque, and it's not my practice, even when I'm a part of an organization where there are two signing officers, to sign a blank cheque
[ Page 11777 ]
and then leave it for the other person. Even though I normally trust that person, that would not be fair to them, to myself or to the organization to which we're both responsible. Signing blank cheques is just not something we can do. Those definitions and regulations are not there.
As you go through the bill, the words "registrar," "arbitrator" and "court" are used interchangeably. There's no clarification as to whether they are the same person, which one overrides the other or under which circumstance one or the other is responsible. So there is a lack of clarity in the bill.
I understand that the intention is to make it better for the 5 percent, or the perhaps 4 percent or 3 percent, of landlords and tenants who are abusing each other. There are tenants who abuse landlords, and there are landlords who abuse tenants. But a bill should be specific to those who abuse. You don't punish everybody who drives a car because some people are unable to drive a car safely. There must be more specific regulations, instead of these wide-reaching generalizations that catch everybody.
When it's that wide and that general, you're encouraging people to misuse the system. We found in so many other systems of the government that people misused the system, partly because they do it by design and partly because they are not clear about it and do it by mistake. There are real difficulties in the application of this that make it improbable and, I expect, impossible to do the task which the hon. minister has set forth in her introduction.
What are minor repairs? There is no real definition of that. What are responsible actions? What are responsible attempts to contact the landlord? One very simple statement, which I applaud, is that the landlord should have posted in the apartment or house the place where the landlord or that landlord's representative can be contacted. That's a very simple, straightforward decision which should be made, and it's one which I applaud. It's those kinds of specifics that one can support.
[3:00]
But the generalization that this will be decided later on by regulation, that this will be decided after the act is passed.... The hon. minister has said that once the act is passed it will go out to the community, and she will sit down with the landlords and tenants and work out the implications of it. Why not reverse that trend? Why not go out to the community first and look at that opportunity before we go ahead with it? I think it's very important that we take a second look at this. Now that the community has had an opportunity to read the bill, it's important that we go back and have them respond to it.
I would commend this and hope that the minister will be prepared and willing to do just that.
L. Hanson: I rise to speak against this bill in second reading. It's certainly an interesting bill. It brings in rent control while pretending not to be a rent control bill. It brings in something that the government knows won't work. So from those two statements it obviously has another motivation, and I believe that to be for political purposes. The bill does something that the government knows won't work and that the government pretends it won't do. Why would the government bring in a bill that does what the government claims it doesn't do but will actually do the opposite? I'm sure that's a good question that the minister has been asked a number of times. I noticed that in her responses to the media at various times, she had some difficulty answering that.
But obviously the government is bringing in this bill for one reason and one reason only: they're trying to buy some short-term support. They know that the results of this bill, in the availability and number of rental units, will not turn up until about two years down the road. It is, without any question, a rent control bill.
I'm sure the minister is aware of Barrie Clark, from his former role as rentalsman. He says that this bill is rent control. The Vancouver Sun, the Prince George Citizen and dozens of other papers all around the province correctly name it as a rent control bill. Indeed, anyone giving the bill a plain reading would have to say that any bill that allows cabinet to set a formula for maximum rent increases, to control that formula and to decide whether or not increases fit in with that formula will control the rate of rental increases in the province. The only thing this bill doesn't say is that it will control the supply of rental accommodation in British Columbia, too.
While I reserve my right to continue, I believe that the member for Peace River North would like to make an introduction.
R. Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to be able to introduce a class of students from Upper Pine Elementary School in Fort St. John. It's not too often that a member from as far away as I am gets to do this. I'd like to introduce their teacher, Mr. Chris Hambleton. There are 26 students, who are accompanied by Lorna Banack, Patty Moore, Arlene Dietz, Chris Lamoureux, Chester Jackson and Cathy Copeland. Would the House please make them welcome to Victoria.
L. Hanson: I think it's well known to members of the government, and certainly to others, that rent controls do not work. Most jurisdictions in North America brought in rent controls in the 1970s. They were eliminated in the eighties in almost all of those jurisdictions for three very basic reasons: in every case, rent controls inspired landlords to charge the maximum rent increase possible; rent controls discouraged investment in rental housing development; and the restriction in supply and the maximization of allowable rents led to bigger price increases than would have happened otherwise. It led to classes of renters who were driven underground into second-class accommodation, hidden from any regulation whatsoever.
British Columbia was part of this North American experiment. Rent controls were introduced here in January 1974, and they existed for the next nine and a half years. They caused nothing but trouble for the province and for local governments. In the years since rent control was lifted, we have been building new rental accommodation in record numbers. There are approximately 400,000 rental units in British Columbia, housing over two million people at a time -- almost equal to the entire population of the province in 1981.
The government claims that apartment buildings are not being built, but this government takes at the old-style view of rental accommodation. Today's new rental suite is more likely to be part of a condominium project, with individual landlords owning individual units, and with tenants living side by side with owner-occupiers in a healthy mixed environment. The old-style tenement buildings -- the kind that the NDP claims aren't being built under the present climate -- are not the only form of rental housing in this province.
I believe we enjoy a healthy mix of different types of rental accommodation in British Columbia. The majority of
[ Page 11778 ]
landlords in B.C. own less than four units, and typically they are middle-class families letting out suites in their own homes, or small business people who invest in one or two condominium units in lieu of a retirement plan. British Columbia landlords are not out to gouge the public. Average rent increases in this province over the last five years have been below the rate of inflation. This government has no business citing one or two rent increases of 30 percent out of context and claiming they are justification for a provincewide rent control mechanism. There is no economic justification and no social justification for rent control. Rent controls insult landlords, restrict supply and in fact hurt tenants rather than help them.
This government knows this as well as all of us do. The only reason they're bringing it in has to be political. This government knows that the pinch in rental housing supply caused by rent controls will take about 24 months to materialize. I suspect that it plans to go to the polls before that happens. In the meantime, it is trying to a score a short-term political hit with a policy it knows will be bad for all British Columbians in the long term. British Columbians will see through this. They'll see that it is a political move, and it will encourage British Columbians to drive them out of office in the next election. They will replace them with a government that will stand up for the principles of honesty and real democracy, just as they did in the federal election. That old description says: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck." And this is rent control in its purest form.
G. Wilson: When dealing with Bill 50 in principle, we have to address what the concern is and how we're trying to address it. I've heard members say this constitutes rent control, and I've heard Mr. Barrie Clark, the former rentalsman, say that in his view this is a form of rent control. I fundamentally disagree. This is not rent control.
It may not be good legislation. But it does not constitute rent control, because there's no cap -- nothing in here caps a rent increase or binds a landlord. It provides for a tenant to protest rent increases and, through that protestation, move what the tenant may see as an unjustifiable rent increase to an arbitration process.
I find it just a bit surprising that there is such hostility toward this particular piece of legislation on the basis of it being rent control. Enough in here should cause us some concern with its drafting and with some of the consequential amendments that are confusing if not problematic in law, without worrying whether it is or isn't rent control.
Clearly, in modern-day society, where a high percentage of people are subject to rents and often come from middle- and low-income families, there should be some process or procedure by which the opportunity can occur for tenants to have access to and to avail themselves of some kind of appeal or arbitration process. I find it even more peculiar because, if we start to look at the comments made by the now Leader of the Opposition when he was mayor of Vancouver.... Perhaps we should start back in January 23, 1990, where he suggests: "Rent review doesn't interfere with the market. It doesn't interfere with investment in housing...."
What it does interfere with is housing speculation. It interferes with the person who comes in, looks at an apartment and says: "I'll go in and increase all of those rentals, create a new paper value for this apartment, and I'll sell it." That's precisely what we don't need, that fuelling of speculative issues in the market. I think the now Leader of the Opposition was probably correct on that.
On February 21, 1990, the Leader of the Opposition had a proposal of his own that suggested that tenants and landlords be expected to work together. That's a component of this particular bill. Landlords would have been required to justify rent increases to their tenants. If tenants were not satisfied, they could appeal to a newly established rent review commission. That sounds awfully like this bill. This was being advocated on February 21, 1990, by the now Leader of the Opposition. It really doesn't do us any good to try to play politics on a question as important as rental housing. We see that whether they're in favour or opposed, whether it is or is not rent control, it's the flavour of the month for the opposition. In fact, an open letter to the citizens of Vancouver says:
"Do you believe that all tenants deserve protection under the Residential Tenancy Act? Do you believe that all Vancouver housing should meet minimum health and safety standards? Do you believe that all citizens should pay their fair share of taxes for city services? If your answers to these questions are yes, then you agree with the housing approach...taken by the NPA."
The reason I introduce this....
We can hook ourselves in this debate on the concept that rent control is bad. I would agree that it is, because I certainly don't support rent control. In fact, this bill does not introduce rent control; it introduces a particular procedure by which tenants are able to negotiate with landlords with respect to those rent increases.
The difficulty we have with the bill -- and there are some legitimate concerns -- is that it doesn't address the real and urgent need to have a housing strategy for the province. That is where this bill really falls short. It doesn't fall short so much in the sense that it introduces restrictions in the free market system in terms of rental accommodation -- although it does interfere in the free market. Much more importantly, it starts to create those restrictions in the absence of a clear strategy for expanding housing supply, particularly low-income housing.
What's interesting is the approach taken by the then mayor of Vancouver, the now Leader of the Opposition. They embarked on new housing projects for tenants, such as with Vancouver Land Corp. He heralded this new creation -- Vancouver City Savings and the VLC -- as the great panacea for solving the problem. No greater ripoff in terms of housing will you find than that VLC fiasco, which was entered into by the now Leader of the Opposition. I don't have a great deal of faith that the people of British Columbia will be well served by the kinds of projects and schemes that are dreamed up by those who would make large tracts of public land available at below market value in order to allow a company that is funded directly from union revenues -- and from the government, as we find out -- to put a number of low-income housing units in place using contracts that are subsidized by the province. Then we find out that the amount of money paid back to that company is in excess of $6.5 million. Even more money has to be paid by taxpayers to that company, Vancouver Land Corp., for housing projects that are yet to come on stream, because they haven't been completed and haven't created any middle- or low-income housing projects. In fact, what they have done is quite the opposite: they have ingratiated and enriched the recipients of the money. They have ripped off the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, and because of the large subsidy, they have also ripped off the taxpayers of British Columbia.
[3:15]
That kind of approach and the doublespeak that I've just made reference to doesn't solve the problems in this bill. It is not a solution. This bill takes a couple of steps toward a
[ Page 11779 ]
solution. We will take issue in committee stage with some of the language in this bill, because we think the language is badly drafted. Indeed, we think it's even problematic in terms of some of the consequential amendments. The minister will have an opportunity to explain why that's not so when we get there.
With respect to a housing strategy, we would have liked to have seen a much bolder initiative that would have created more units on the market, in a free market system, units that would have been put toward a rent-to-own program. Those of us in the Alliance, formerly within the B.C. Liberal Party -- they seem to have abandoned this proposal; we are going to continue it because we feel that we have a mandate from the people in the last election to do so -- have been working for some time to have a rent-to-own program advanced in the province. The rent-to-own program is fairly straightforward. This program would require that a number of units come on stream, built in a free market system with capital that can be bonded by government through a public bond issue that would allow those units to be available to people who require rental accommodation on a rent-to-own basis, so that they would not be required to have large capital for a down payment and would not be subject to huge mortgage costs with massive interest generated in the early stages of their rental of these facilities. It would allow those people in the rent-to-own program to develop and create equity in the property they are purchasing and, through the creation of that equity, put them in a position to be more fiscally sound with respect to the potential purchase of that property in the final analysis.
On the question of rent-to-own, the private market is not going to find this a problem, because it engenders a greater amount of supply and does not unduly affect the price of units coming onto the market. Second, it allows for a variety of rental units to be constructed -- some for the low-income group, some middle-income and some at the higher end of the scale. It would allow those British Columbians who currently find themselves locked into the cycle of tenancy who would prefer to get into the housing market -- and that's not all of them to be sure, because a lot of people like to rent and, by preference, have remained renters -- an opportunity to do so at the level at which they can afford to enter. That's an important point, because in the housing discussion and the strategy for the provision of greater rental accommodation, we often forget that there has to be a blending of those accommodations that will be available to all types of tenants. By that, I mean all types of tenants in terms of income and regional or local preference -- and that may be and often is decided by virtue of wanting to live in an area in which there is a cultural homogeneity. If you were a new immigrant Canadian, you might wish to be in an area where the language of your neighbours is consistent with the language that is your first language. It might be also be linked into the provision of educational services for your children. Again, that has a cultural connection, and those people who live in the larger urban centres will know that what I'm talking about is correct. So you need the mix -- not just in terms of income, but in terms of community and what we're making available to various groups of people in the community in order for them to have an opportunity to acquire property that is not only within their grasp financially but that also meets the demands they may have from a social and cultural point of view.
I don't think the solution is artificially trying to control the market system, whether you put on a new arbitration process, or provide a tenant's rights advocate or even a rentalsman -- and I'm not entirely opposed to the rentalsman concept. A rentalsman does not provide the kind of thrust that's needed in terms of a new housing strategy for the province. Rent-to-own does it, because it doesn't require the kind of government subsidies that we have seen in the past through CMHC initiatives or federal and provincial government initiatives. I am thinking back to the 1970s, when we came up with the Raymur type of development in Vancouver where low-income housing was developed that in large measure did not only not meet the needs of the people socially but created a series of problems, as a result of the kinds of facilities that were left on the landscape and the development -- I have to be careful with my words here -- of almost an enclave of low-income people who lived in these areas.
So what we need to do, and what the rent-to-own program does -- which I offer to the government as a sensible initiative -- is facilitate an influx of capital into residential housing at all those levels, with those cultural considerations provided. It provides an opportunity for people to get in there and put their money into equity, which will at some point be returned to them either in the purchase of the unit they are in or -- depending on their fortune, if they excel and are able to get into a higher income bracket -- to use as a trade-up to new accommodation. It keeps that accommodation on the market at a reasonable price to allow people to gain entry.
The second concern we have with this legislation is with respect to the whole question of arbitration and how the arbitrator is going to function. We have read this with great care and tried to cross-reference it to all the appropriate legislation. We have tried to look at it in various other jurisdictions in which a similar situation makes a comparison worthwhile. The concern we have is that it is likely to be a very tedious, very difficult and often very expensive process that may not end up with much satisfaction short of moving to a litigation process, which is out of reach of a lot of tenants. It creates for those landlords an undesirable prospect with respect to rent increases, if in fact they can.... And we would argue that the majority of landlords who are increasing their rents do so because there is reasonable justification.
I think that on both ends of the spectrum...you will find the unscrupulous landlord and you might find the unscrupulous tenant. But by and large, those in the middle are trying to work toward a reasonable accommodation of the landlord's concerns and needs because of their investment -- and I think we have to consider that -- and the tenant's needs for protection and recognition that this is indeed their home, notwithstanding that the building is owned by somebody else. Once they are a tenant in that building, that is their home, and they have a right to a certain level of protection within that home, not only from unwarranted entry, which this bill does attempt to address, but also from rent increases.
We're concerned that the arbitration process doesn't necessarily solve either party's problem, so we're not certain that this bill is going to do very much more than what is available already. The minister will have an opportunity to explain that in committee stage as we get into the details of those particular sections.
In closing, it is most interesting to see the change in opinion -- the flip-flop on these issues -- depending on which particular political forum you happen to be in at any given time: whether you happen to be saying one thing at the municipal level, and then say something quite different when you get to the provincial level; or whether you are
[ Page 11780 ]
speaking to the landlords, saying one thing, and then say something else to the tenant groups.
The real key to the solution.... While the housing crisis may not be as great now as it was in 1990, it's potentially going to be there again very shortly. The real solution is to make sure that the open, free market system provides for a greater number of units to come on stream, a mix of units that are going to be affordable by those people who need to access them. We believe the rent-to-own program is a sensible and proper approach by which people will be able to not only afford rental accommodation in the long term, if that is their desire, but also have an opportunity, if they wish to get into ownership, to be able to do so without undue financial cost to them.
So we have concerns about Bill 50 in terms of its logistics, its mechanics and some of its language, which we believe to be simply unworkable and incompatible with some of the companion legislation. We will address those concerns in some detail when we get into committee stage.
In principle, we don't believe that government should start trying to bring in undue restriction in the form of rent control, although we fail to recognize -- and I defy anybody to show me -- language in this particular bill that shows this is rent control. It certainly does have an implication with respect to the ability of landlords to increase rents, but it does not provide a cap or rigid ceiling and certainly doesn't put in place the kind of rent controls that we've seen in other jurisdictions.
Our concern with this bill, in principle, is that it fails to introduce and take a more progressive and dynamic approach to the provision of rental accommodation. It does not outline a clear strategy for rental housing and accommodation for those people who are dependent on rental accommodation in British Columbia. We have introduced our idea, which we believe is a sensible one on rent-to-own that does not require the massive giveaways and the kind of ripoff we saw in the city of Vancouver under VLC and the proponents of that group. What it does is provide an opportunity for the people who have access to that market to gain the kind of shelter that they deserve and that we would argue the state has an obligation to provide.
Where you have the state intervening in the market, we would oppose it in principle. We do not believe in that solution. We believe that the bill falls short with respect to the provision of a new rental strategy and a new rent-to-own program -- which we believe would provide a greater and broader access to accommodation. We will be addressing the technicalities of the bill in committee stage. We think that there are some very real problems in terms of the language of this bill with respect to companion legislation and some of the consequential amendments that will be there.
G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the opportunity to, however briefly, enter this debate. Once again, my role with regard to the previous speaker is to set the record straight, clear up some of the lack of frankness in the realm of what the member was saying, and fill in the gaps that he deliberately left out so that we can perhaps have a more truthful explanation of history, of what really took place.
I would like to talk a little bit about the bill and make reference to some comments that were made earlier. The minister calls this bill that she has brought forward rent review legislation; indeed, she's put a structure in place to allow for rent review. But she has left out one key issue in the determination of a valid rent increase, and that's the market.
We all know that sometimes the market doesn't work 100 percent. We hope that it does, and certainly it corrects itself over the long term, but it doesn't always work 100 percent. I think the minister has to realize also that in bringing in a rent review process and completely ignoring market determination and market factors, she's setting herself up for a major failure, in that over time, whether there's legislation or not, the market will react to whatever sort of controls the government chooses to put in place. Whether it's a review process or a control or capping process, if the government -- if any government, for that matter -- refuses to recognize the influence of the market, then it's missing out on one of the key factors that is going to determine the price of rental accommodation.
[3:30]
In response to some comments made by the previous member who spoke, I'd like to fill in the gaps in the clippings that he read from. He read from them very selectively. Indeed, I think he should refer back to his article in the Vancouver Sun on January 26, 1990, where he talked about the mayor of Vancouver unveiling to lower mainland mayors on Thursday a call for a computer registry of rents: "...an allowable range of rent increases based on market averages." Yes, it's a rent review process, but based on market averages. However, the mayor's idea is the first clear proposal that outlines a way tenants can be protected from what he calls unconscionable rent increases. The mayor told reporters after the meeting that he still doesn't favour control of rents, but believes a rent review process based on market averages would dampen the current prices.
One has to maintain an awareness of what was going on in the Vancouver housing market in January 1990. Indeed, there was widespread support from a number of mayors. One example here, which the member notably avoided making reference to, is of the mayor of North Vancouver, who was saying: "I think there are going to be disagreements" -- on this proposal put forward by the mayor of Vancouver -- "but in my opinion this is one of the most progressive steps we've taken." That's a very positive review from a mayor who deals with this process all the time.
If I can read from another clipping with regard to the process advocated by the then mayor of Vancouver:
"At the same time [the mayor] unveiled his concept of a rent review process, in which landlords would establish their own rent increases but reviews would be conducted if the increases were greater than one and a half times the market average. But [the mayor] admitted to reporters later...."
It goes on to say that that was only one of the projects being considered.
Then there's a quote from him in which he says: "I've suggested one proposal to the mayors, who would all like to deal with the question of unconscionable rent increases."
So it's not a question of whether there are problems out there from time to time; the question is how the government deals with them. The way in which the minister has gone about it has been a little naive, I think. Once again we see an example -- as we see with the community bank and a number of other pieces of legislation they've brought forward in the past -- of this government's good intentions getting bound up in incredible ideology and bureaucracy, which is the trademark of the way the New Democrats operate. They establish a huge structure designed to deal with a problem. There's no efficiency in the way they try to deal with these problems. There's really no concern for the cost to the taxpayers or for the long-term effects of those policies and legislation. They tend to come up with projects and proposals so that they can put the red banner on their flagpole, rush in and say: "Aren't we wonderful! We're solving all your problems." But the NDP governments
[ Page 11781 ]
usually aren't around three, four or five years later to deal with the mess. Some other government has to deal with the mess created by those idealistic, well-intentioned agenda items. This is an example of exactly that type of thing.
We have a minister who -- while well-intentioned, just like the Minister of Employment and Investment, with his community bank -- sees a problem and wants to deal with the problem. Perhaps it's three years late to be addressing the problem -- although there are still a great deal of problems in certain areas of the province, which we're all aware of. The minister is dealing with a problem in a well-intentioned way. But her ideology and agenda are getting the best of her. The perspective from which she looks at this problem is one of a large and interventionist government, one of: "Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys?" -- picking the bad guys and going after the bad guys.
We see that time and time again from this government. It would be nice if for once they had to be around to clean up one of their messes, although I know the people of the province don't want them around to clean up their messes. They're going to have to bring somebody else in to do it. They should be aware when they're bringing in these types of policies and legislation that there is some downstream, long-term effect and there are some -- perhaps unintended -- consequences of their well-intentioned efforts, and realize that somewhere down the line somebody is going to have to deal with that.
With the rent review process put in place by this government, with no relevancy or determination of market conditions at all, we know there are going to be unintended consequences. The market will compensate for that in some way or another and will probably mean that people will take their capital and invest it elsewhere. They're going to invest it in condos. They may well take small buildings -- from four or five units up to 20 units; that type and that size -- decide it's not worth keeping the capital invested in that housing as rental accommodation, and either renovate, turn them into condominiums and sell them, or tear the building down and use it for other purposes, whether commercial or condominiums again -- but in a new building.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I know the minister will stand up, talk about the review process she has in place here and say that when a unit becomes vacant is the time when that market adjustment can take place. That's a nice theory, but you're going to end up with a Proposition 13 type of problem like they have in the United States, where you have neighbours living in similar houses next to each other -- one with a tax rate fixed at a tenth of what the person next door is paying. Within one building, you're also going to end up with one person in one unit paying who knows how much more than the person in the next unit who has been there for five, ten or 20 years, for that matter -- over a long period of time. Eventually, it's going to become unrealistic. It's not going to be the best market usage for that capital, that building or that land. A correction will take place, and the building will come down or be sold as strata title units.
The minister should be aware of that; perhaps underneath she is aware of it. But she is responding to a fairly strong and active lobby. It's just unfortunate that she's dealing with it in such an ideological manner. There is a way to deal with unconscionable rent increases. I would suggest that the minister go back and talk to the other side a little more. Perhaps that's not comfortable for her, but I would suggest that she go back and talk with the people she terms the "bad guys" and try to come up with some better ideas -- and try not to intervene so much in the marketplace. Down the line, tenants and renters of the province are going to be the ones who are hurt. She needs to look a little more into the long term rather than the short term on this one. Look at what is available. Look at the opportunities to deal with these unconscionable rent increases when they do occur -- and try not to set up a huge bureaucratic, market-insensitive process that's going to have long-range repercussions not just for landlords and investors but for people looking to find rental accommodation in all areas of this province.
I hope the minister will look into some of the suggestions put forward by a variety of people and at ways to try and deal with them. It certainly isn't a brand-new issue; it has been around for a long time. Look at some of the opportunities that are out there and perhaps think a little more in the long term rather than the short term.
J. Tyabji: Point of order. I didn't want to interrupt the previous speaker's comments, but he began by saying that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast lacked truthfulness in his speech. I would ask that he withdraw those comments.
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Given that I wasn't in the chair at the time, I will simply take that under advisement, and we will look at Hansard and see what the record says. But certainly the member's point is being raised, and we will return to it.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure that the fact that the character of that person was impugned by....
Deputy Speaker: As I said, I can't comment on it now because I wasn't in the chair, so please simply leave it with me. I will, however, entertain a brief response from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on the same point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the member wasn't listening carefully. If she goes back and checks it, I think she will find that in no way did I impugn the motives of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I was merely setting the record straight and adding a complete statement to what he said.
Deputy Speaker: That ought to end the matter at this point. We don't want a procedural wrangle when we don't have the evidence.
J. Tyabji: On second reading of the bill and the substance of the bill -- instead of other members of the House.... Before I start speaking to the principle, I want to draw the the minister's attention to a couple of drafting problems that I found in the bill that she might want to be aware of before we get to committee stage. They are with regard to section 9 of this bill, which says that section 21 is repealed, and then under consequential amendments we see that there's an amendment to section 21 of the amendment act. Also, in a couple of parts of the bill, there are references to section 21 of the act, which is repealed by section 9. There are a few other drafting problems that we might have to address in committee stage, but that one seems fairly major.
With regard to the principle of this bill, I think that the intent of the bill -- if it is to allow an avenue of appeal for people who are in rental accommodation -- is laudable. Certainly it is necessary for people in rental accommodation
[ Page 11782 ]
to have an avenue of redress in the event that they face rents that are unreasonable. However, I am speaking against the bill, as the Alliance leader has, in terms of the machinery that has been put in place by the minister. Most importantly, if we're looking at people in rental accommodation, we recognize that there is limited money. Actually, these days there is limited money on both sides of the equation. Many tenants are in a position where they don't have a lot of money to spend on expensive review procedures. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that in section 5 of this bill, we have many more sections being referred to the courts as an avenue of appeal, rather than to an arbitrator. That's something I hope to hear more from the minister on. It certainly doesn't help a renter or landlord when they find that the avenue of appeal is through the courts, because that can be very expensive and lengthy.
I think the crux of the bill comes under section 18.2, where we start to talk about a prescribed form and a prescribed formula. We find out later that it will be through cabinet that there will be this prescribed formula and prescribed form, and that through this prescribed formula and form, we will then know what will be considered a reasonable or justified rent increase. Therefore the machinery for rent review comes through prescription by cabinet. That's something that we feel very nervous about, because we haven't seen it.
Obviously what we have through this bill is an infringement on the rights of the landlord in order to protect the rights of the tenant. It would seem that there's going to be a very unwieldy mechanism in place whereby there will be arbitration and possibly court action, which could be very expensive. We don't know what the bottom line will be for justifying a rent increase or decrease. I'm sure the minister will appreciate that whenever we infringe on the rights of one group in order to protect the rights of another, we want to make sure that we do that in the most expedient way, and that will obviously be the least costly way and the most efficient way in terms of the amount of time spent.
I should state on the record that some parts of this bill are very good. The minister has obviously taken some time on some parts to make sure that the needs of the tenants and landlords are being addressed. However, what we take exception to is that in the absence of a comprehensive strategy for housing, and rental housing in particular, for the province, it's very difficult to know what to expect when this bill becomes law and starts to be implemented.
For example, the Alliance leader talked about the Vancouver Land Corp., where we saw a large amount of public land and public money being given to a private corporation -- an incredible fiasco, where private profit was gained. If we had a proper housing strategy in this province, first of all, that probably wouldn't have happened without tender. There would have been tendering for the opportunity to have access to that land and public money. Secondly, it would not have happened with a lack of accountability, in the manner in which it has. Notwithstanding the millions of dollars worth of land, the millions of dollars of cash going into a private company and the profits gleaned, there has been no accountability whatsoever.
We, the public, are once again burned by an unaccountable branch of municipal government or provincial government, where deeds are signed away and money is given, and the public ends up no better off in the end because there's no housing strategy. If there were a housing strategy and all the participants to that strategy had certain expectations that they had to meet within that, then that would automatically be an accountability process. The Vancouver Land Corp., in not meeting the expectations of the housing strategy, would then be penalized accordingly. Certainly the people who were at the table when that company was put together, or when the land or the money was given, would be directly accountable and would not be able to benefit in a private way.
When we talk about rent-to-own housing, that is a very good way of empowering people who are earning low and middle incomes and who can't afford to own their own homes. I'm not sure if the Alliance leader talked about it, but certainly something our party believes in is that when we have an incredible public resource such as Crown lands, we could have a housing strategy that would integrate Crown lands, manufactured homes and rent-to-own housing, so that we could have a comprehensive strategy. In addition to having a proper housing strategy through the Residential Tenancy Act, we would also incorporate some branches of Social Services, where we have cooperative housing and special needs housing, through a government strategy throughout the province.
[3:45]
In the absence of this, what do we have? This bill is supposed to be addressing the needs of tenants who would like to know that their rent cannot be increased beyond their ability to pay without some form of redress. In addition to that, we want to make sure that any bill that comes before this House is not going to lead to insecurities in the private sector and, basically, in the market that will be providing rental housing.
Unfortunately, what we have in this bill is not enough on either side. We know that rental housing owners are extremely concerned with this bill; they see it as rent control. We in the Alliance don't see it as rent control. We think it's terribly misleading to put that out there, although maybe some people haven't spent enough time with the bill. Or perhaps the minister is going to bring in regulations that will be rent control. Certainly the legislation is not rent control. In absence of the regulations, we can only look at the bill and say that this is not rent control; but because they perceive it as rent control, there's a lot of anxiety.
We find that in times when the economy is already difficult and people are not major players in rental housing -- when they're middle-sized or smaller fish in the rental housing scheme -- they very easily get scared out of creating or contributing to the housing market. That's unfortunate, because then what we do find is that some of the bigger players -- whether they be offshore or employers with the least number of employees, considering the amount of capital in them -- tend to take over the housing market. That's not generally in the interest of the public or of the tenants, because the closer the tenants are to the landlords, the better the relationship tends to be. If we end up giving over the housing market to the biggest fish in the housing industry, the landlords end up removed from the tenants, and the service to the tenants is generally of lower quality and less face-to-face. Therefore it's much more difficult for the tenants to receive service. In the absence of service, the government has to intervene, especially with this bill.
We will find that if this bill scares the small and middle-sized rental accommodation businesses or individuals out of the housing market, they will then be taken over by the larger companies. The government will have to intervene, because often the larger companies will be removed from the process and have the resources necessary to go to court. Ironically, if it is the bigger players that end up taking over the housing market, they will have the resources to go to court, whereas the renters often will not, so they will
[ Page 11783 ]
be the ones dragged before the courts and unable even to afford proper representation in that arena.
We have a lot of concerns, and one of the things we should look at very carefully is the needs of the renters. In my area and in many parts of the province there's a very low vacancy rate. We know that in those instances renters feel very vulnerable. There's no question that they should have some avenue of appeal.
I think other members are going to be talking about the office of the rentalsman -- I don't know what we'd call it in a politically correct age. Basically it's an office through which there can be rent review, and there would be one individual arbitrating that rent review. I'm not sure to what extent that would play with this bill, because so much of it allows for litigation, and once litigation steps in we've got a very expensive and very time-consuming process.
Before concluding speaking against this bill, I want to say that one thing I would have really liked to have seen from this government was a rewriting of the Residential Tenancy Act so that it wasn't so cumbersome. Anyone who spends a few minutes with this bill -- not only this bill, but Bill 67 from last year and the Residential Tenancy Act as it stands -- will find that you almost have to have a team of lawyers to go over it to understand how it reads. Once you've spent time with it -- some of us, as the minister knows, do spend a lot of time cross-referencing these bills.... You could go cross-eyed trying to figure out which section.... Each section refers to a different section, and when you refer to that section it refers to another section.
There's got to be an easier way to write this. I would hope that if nothing else we would see something in plain language, because if this minister's intent is to help renters and landlords.... They should understand the legislation that governs them. I would have a hard time believing that any renter or tenant could spend any time with this bill and feel comfortable with what it's supposed to be doing. Plain language is something that empowers everyone, particularly those with few resources, and most renters do have few resources. I can see a number of areas where the bill could be simplified very easily. If it were simplified -- especially in principle -- it would be much easier for renters to make use of it, for landlords to make submissions on it and for everyone to get along much better.
The last point I'd like to make in second reading is about some concerns I have regarding the changing of locks. Really, there are concerns on both sides. The first concern is with the entry of a landlord into somebody's private home that they're renting. It should be very clear that once someone takes over the rental of a unit, the landlord's right to enter should be almost prohibited, then, because that is that person's personal space.
However, when we move to the point of changing locks so that someone's private property is being altered by a person under contract with that landlord, unless there's been some agreement by the landlord.... If the landlord has been found to be intrusive on that person, that person should have and does have an avenue to report the landlord. But I'm concerned that the way the bill is written right now, a renter actually could change the locks. The application made to the courts by the landlord could end up arguing something retroactively. The landlord may have to go to court to fight against something that's already happened. The landlord does not even have the ability to control his or her own property, because someone has gone in and changed the locks without any due reason, and the landlord then has to go to court. I have instances to bring up in committee stage.
The last point on this bill is that it's a mistake if we think that there are only nuisance landlords or nuisance tenants, and a bigger mistake to think either category is in the majority either way. We all recognize that there are good and bad tenants and good and bad landlords, and that the good on either side are in the majority. We should write our legislation accordingly, recognizing that most people uphold not only the law but the spirit of a renter-and-landlord agreement.
In recognizing that, we should make it difficult for someone to harass someone. I've been a tenant and I've been a landlord. One day I hope to be a landlord again; right now I'm on the tenant end of things. I've had bad tenants who can harass a landlord at great length. And this bill does allow some wide openings for that. I've also been a tenant....
G. Farrell-Collins: Will you come back and rent in Fort Langley-Aldergrove?
J. Tyabji: No, I screen my applications for tenancy.
I also have been a tenant and have had landlords who harassed me as a tenant. It seems to me that the bill leaves things wide open for harassment on both ends. Just as we need to protect the rights of people being mistreated by the law, we also have to protect the rights of those upholding the law and being harassed unnecessarily.
With that -- although speaking against the bill -- I would like to commend the initiative of the minister. I look forward to committee stage.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the return of the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound. Welcome back.
D. Mitchell: Garibaldi.
Deputy Speaker: You've been away too long, member. My apologies.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I didn't know that you or anybody else had noticed.
J. Tyabji: We all care. The debate's been sadly lacking.
D. Mitchell: I won't belabour some of the constructive comments that have been made in debate on Bill 50, but I would like to add a few comments. I'm very interested to see what the minister has to say in her closing comments on second reading of this bill. The debate has raised some interesting points.
Bill 50, which amends the central statute governing the important relationship between landlords and tenants in our province, needs to be looked at closely, because we have to understand why the law needs to be amended. What's wrong with the existing legislation, which on face value appears to have worked well for many years? Bill 50 seeks to amend that act, to bring in some changes in how the relationship between landlords and tenants is governed, and to do so in some interesting and important ways.
The central test as to whether this is a good or a bad bill -- whether or not it can be supported in principle -- has to be whether it's going to improve the lot of renters in British Columbia. What impact will Bill 50 have on the availability of affordable rental housing in British Columbia? If the effect of Bill 50 will be positive, then I think it should be supported. But if the effect of Bill 50 looks like it might be negative, might curtail or restrict rental housing in a tough and
[ Page 11784 ]
challenging market, then there is no way it can be supported. I think that's the simple test.
When we take a look at Bill 50, we note that it's amending a statute that has worked relatively well and has really allowed free market forces to govern the relationship between landlords and tenants for a number of years. How have those free market forces operated? We've had a wide array of rental accommodation available in British Columbia for a number of years. A wide array and a number of choices have been available. That's not to say that things couldn't be improved. Hon. Speaker, you will be aware, as all members will be, that there is a need to improve the variety of options available to renters -- those people who cannot afford to, or choose not to, be homeowners in the market in British Columbia.
I know that in the constituency I represent, even in the relatively affluent area of West Vancouver, there are many renters on fixed incomes -- seniors or young families who are just starting up -- who have real difficulty finding rental accommodation. The same is true in communities such as Squamish or Whistler, where young people have real difficulty finding affordable rental housing. So the question I have to ask is: how is this bill going to improve their lot?
The concern I have to have is that this bill, which is instituting a program of.... I don't really want to get into a semantic argument about whether it's rent control or rent review, because there's been a lot said on that issue already, and I don't think I have anything to add to that debate. But it's bringing in a regime that is certainly more bureaucratic and more cumbersome. I wonder why, because the minister sponsoring this bill has said herself that landlords aren't a big problem in British Columbia. Yet the process in this bill she has brought in leads me to wonder what the problem is.
We know that under this process, landlords are now going to have to justify all rent increases. Rent hikes based on property value increases are banned by this bill. Rent hikes would also be banned for any cosmetic renovations to rental accommodation. Tenants can appeal, and the Housing ministry will try to get the two sides to agree during cases of appeal. If they can't agree, the ministry will help appoint an arbitrator. Cabinet is going to draft a formula for that subsequent to the passage of this legislation.
One wonders, why do we need all this? There once was an office of the rentalsman, as it was called, in the province. That office was controversial but it was certainly a lot simpler than the process outlined here. One wonders why the minister didn't simply re-establish the office of the rentalsman, or rentalsperson, rather than go this route, which is much more cumbersome, appears to be much more costly and really isn't going to do anything to encourage the investment that's required to promote rental housing in British Columbia.
So if landlords aren't a problem, as the minister has said, what is the problem? What is the problem that she is responding to in bringing this legislation forward? A number of people have suggested that this legislation is actually going to discourage investment to create more affordable rental housing. That's a worry; it has to be a cause of grave concern to all members of the Legislature. We know we're living in an age when expensive condominiums are being constructed, not for rental but for ownership, in all of our major urban centres in the province. This further restricts the availability of rental accommodation. This bill could be seen as one step toward accelerating that trend toward building expensive condominium-style housing in our major urban centres. But where is the rental accommodation going to come from?
[4:00]
In Ontario a similar government, an NDP government, brought in some statutory changes to landlord-tenant relationships. The situation there has changed the market dramatically. In Ontario we've seen the government scrambling to fill the need, the vacuum, by making investments in expensive social housing that have caused the taxpayers to go further into debt -- and there is a massive public debt in Ontario. Surely that's not the vision we want to see pursued in British Columbia, where the consequence of legislation that perhaps has not been well thought out, and of consultation that perhaps has not been broad enough, might force the government to consider constructing more social housing at taxpayers' expense, thereby adding to the great burden of debt in our province. We don't want to see that, yet that's one conclusion we can come to when taking a look at this legislation.
I'm aware that a number of groups, including the B.C. Real Estate Association, have approached the minister and asked for further consultation on this matter before this legislation is passed into law. One wonders what kind of consultation has taken place to bring forward Bill 50. Clearly, many stakeholders -- people in the marketplace who provide rental housing -- haven't been consulted. And if they have been, their comments are extremely critical -- in fact, very negative. Because of that apparent lack of consultation, although the legislation appears to be well-intentioned, I cannot support it and I will vote against this bill.
D. Jarvis: Like the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I will not go into too much detail, because we will go into a lot more detail when it comes to committee stage. In principle I'm against Bill 50, because basically I can't see why government should get involved in the rental housing business in this province. I feel that any type of rent control is going to adversely affect our market.
The minister says it's not going to be any type of rent control, but section 7, section 18.1(1), says: "A rent increase in any amount...." The bill then says that if that is disputed, arbitration will come into effect. That is a form of rent control, no matter what you try to call it. Any time government gets involved in rental housing -- especially in new rental housing -- the market is going to change and slow down. Whether they like it or not, we are in a supply-and-demand economy. The minister will find out that the rental housing business will slow down. Socialists try to create a renters' paradise by having these types of ministries in government, but all it will be is a bureaucratic nightmare, believe me. They had rent control in this province once before, and we had problems as the years went on. Prices started going up.
Supply and demand is the basis of any type of housing where prices go up. There are no big players in the business. There are a few odd ones that do rentals, but in the majority of situations the big players are really small, average builders or entrepreneurs who go out and create a rental property. If you now start restricting them and put pressure on them, they will back off the business. That's what happened in the later part of the seventies. People stopped building rental accommodation, and rents started going up because of supply and demand. I'd rather see the minister go into social housing that is supplemented by the taxpayers than put everyone in this province under a type of rent control or under a landlord-tenant act, which could also follow, because there are unscrupulous landlords and tenants out there.
[ Page 11785 ]
The last thing we would want to see is our tenants looked after unfairly. I can appreciate.... I've seen it. I've been in the business for 25 years, and I have watched what has happened. In the areas where I have been involved, as soon as the tenancy acts controlling rents came in, new rental units stopped being built, stopped being created. It happens. The minister probably has no idea about what the market out there is like. When there's nothing to be created and built, the population rises and prices start going up. If you have rental controls, you'll create a situation that is the reverse of what she wants.
As I said, I will not go on in detail. We'll talk about it more in committee stage. I just want to say, as I said before, that supply and demand is the factor. The government should realize that if they upset the supply and demand factor, all they're going to do is create a problem in the rental business.
H. De Jong: I just want to make a few comments on this bill. I do not think this bill is going to make any improvements for either the renter or the landlord.
When we hear social planners talk about planning a community -- and I've heard many of them speak on it before -- they've always discouraged putting all of the people with lesser incomes in the same community. It would appear that some of the limitations that are contained in this bill in terms of a landlord's ability to respond to emergency situations or other things that renters may need from time to time are just not possible for a smaller operator. For instance, eight- or ten-unit buildings.... Most of those people have a job elsewhere and cannot respond to emergencies within the time allocated.
Certainly many small landlords have created viable opportunities for people to rent at very reasonable rates. In fact, I know that quite a few rental accommodations in our community are of a smaller nature, and when it comes to a comparison of rental costs, they are considerably lower in price than those that were built under a joint federal-provincial government program many years past. I'm sure that's still true today.
I heard the minister on CKNW last week. I thought by the time that program was finished that the minister would have said, "I think I'd better withdraw this bill," because it simply did not make sense. Many people called in. I'm not going to go over all of the issues that were called in, but many landlords called in and expressed a real concern about what this bill would do, not only in terms of an owner's ability to respond and provide accommodations but also in terms of renters.
Being the Social Services minister previously, she is well aware of the horrendous cost increases that were occurring while she was the minister. I'm very, very concerned that the intent of this bill also provides for those that are considered under the Infants Act to also get the opportunity to rent accommodation. It makes me wonder whether this means that more dropouts can leave home, go on welfare and enter into rental agreements. If that is so, that will again increase the cost to the public. It's not going to do anything to hold families together; it's going to divide the family; we know the NDP philosophy goes that way.
The main point this government made very clear during the election campaign -- when they were in opposition as well as when they became government -- was that they would provide for low-cost housing. This government hasn't done anything to provide low-cost housing. With this bill, this government is again going to increase costs for the people who can least afford to pay rent. Perhaps most of them who fall within that category are supported by the public purse to begin with.
What do we do with this bill? It's nothing more than an additional cost to the public, through taxation, to provide homes for people who can least afford them. I believe that there are better alternatives than putting further restrictions on the Residential Tenancy Act through Bill 50.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill 50. When the government brings in a bill that's as potentially far-reaching as this one, like most people in the opposition we attempt to get the bill into the hands of people who will be affected by it. It's rather interesting to note that in this case the people we heard from regarding the bill were almost unanimous in their opinion that they hadn't seen it before, weren't aware of its implications and, furthermore, were scrambling, as we were speaking, trying to determine exactly what implications it had for those people who own rental accommodation in the province. We on this side of the House continue to be astonished that the government continues to bring forward these bills which have far-reaching implications without, apparently, having consulted the people whose businesses and livelihoods are going to be affected by these bills. It goes on and on.
As other speakers have indicated, this bill places some major restrictions -- or major impediments, I guess you could say -- on people who own rental accommodation. What will the impact of this bill be? That's the kind of thing that we on this side of the House try to envisage. There is absolutely no doubt that the long-term effect of the bill will be to reduce the amount of investment in rental accommodation in the province. When people invest money in rental accommodation they do so with a view to investment, but also with the idea that there are other investments out there. A return on investment is clearly what motivates people to build new rental accommodation. Surely the most important protection a tenant has is the availability of supply.
Again, what will the impact of this bill be? In my own region of Surrey, I think the effect will be to introduce more under-the-table rental arrangements and illegal suites -- the type of rental accommodation that will not be reportable and will not fall under the rules of Bill 50. We have seen it with the GST. We see it whenever the government introduces more regulation. Designed to ensure fairness, it actually induces more unfairness in the marketplace. As I look through this bill, I see nothing that will induce a higher degree of investment in rental accommodation. I don't see anything that will make life for tenants or landlords any simpler. I fail to see how this bill will improve or increase the amount of rental accommodation.
[4:15]
I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon said it best: the type of landlord in the province has changed. We don't see people building large-scale rental projects in this province anymore. They tend to be small investors who own one house or one condominium, and they'll simply get out of the market. Their response to Bill 50 will be to simply get out of the market, to say: "I don't need to have $100,000 or $200,000 tied up in a rental unit with these kinds of restrictions. I'm simply going to sell it and put the investment somewhere else." Or else, what will happen is that they will strike some sort of arrangement with a tenant that involves an illegal suite, which will not be reported. That's the effect these kinds of bills have. People simply find ways around these kinds of restrictions -- they always do -- and I can almost assure the minister that that is what will happen in this particular case.
[ Page 11786 ]
These new restrictions almost amount to de facto rent control. It occurs to me that if you want to introduce constraints in the market, there's more than one way to do it. You can do it by creating such an avalanche of regulation and paperwork that the effect is the same. Looking down the road, what is likely to occur is that the small investor, the person who owns one or two suites, will simply throw up their hands and say that it simply isn't worth it. That's what I'm hearing now from landlords, in my own riding and elsewhere, who've had an opportunity to review this bill.
The members opposite seem to think that having a rental housing project or rental units is a passport to financial riches. Any small investors who own apartment buildings are themselves breaking even. They're not enjoying windfall profits. If the trend has been upward in rents, it's the result, I guess, of a shrinking of supply. It's the law of supply and demand. If fewer people are investing in rental housing, if units that were formerly in rental housing are being sold off because it isn't economic anymore, then clearly that places the kind of upward pressure on rents the minister is seeking to avoid with this bill. You would think, given the dynamics of the marketplace and its impact on rent increases, that some effort would have been made by the government to consult with the real estate industry and the investment industry, to determine what impact the bill might have. Will it induce people to get out of rental housing? I suspect the answer is yes, it will.
We continue to see this kind of legislation -- the introduction of more regulation, more interference by government -- expecting that somehow that's going to help the situation. In this case, I fail to see how it will. People in the rental housing industry are continuing to study the effects of the bill, the implications of the bill, and the need that they will have to hire lawyers. For example, they'll need to access more legal assistance. Again, I can't see a strategy in any part of this bill to increase the stock of rental housing in the province, which really is the basic level of protection -- the ability of someone who doesn't like the accommodation they're in to move to another unit or another building where they will have a better landlord or a better situation.
Clearly, in the long run this bill will create a shrinkage of the rental housing market and, as other speakers have said, will simply result in those remaining landlords increasing the rents per annum to the maximum allowable level. That will be the routine approach because they will be able to take advantage of a declining number of rental units, and they'll be able to charge what the market will bear. I see this bill as a recipe for more tenant-landlord under-the-table arrangements, much like we've seen with the goods and services tax. We are in an era of government where you can simply regulate to the point of driving the economy, or the activity, underground.
We've seen that repeatedly with this government. They introduce new taxes only to lose revenue because people find a way around the regulations or the rule they're attempting to introduce. This is another classic case in point where I fear that will happen; where, because of a shortage of rental supply, tenants will make a deal with a landlord not to be covered by Bill 50. In the future, we expect some rules from the government on illegal suites. We are advised that they're coming. But again, what's going to happen is that people who choose to stay in the rental housing business will simply, on the basis of demand for their unit, cut deals with tenants to avoid the implications of Bill 50 altogether.
I can't say how far we have advanced with this type of legislation. To us on this side of the House, the government does not appear to have consulted widely on the drafting of this bill. I know that one of my colleagues will introduce an amendment to the bill, seeking to invite input from the real estate and rental housing industries. That input has apparently been absent. When that amendment comes forward, I hope the government will give serious consideration to stepping back from this legislation, to try to deduce exactly what impacts it will have if it's allowed to stand, and to invite more submissions. Surely there must be a way of bringing the rental housing industry and the tenants groups together in some sort of constructive relationship to investigate how the problems that the bill seeks to identify can be addressed, without the need for greater regulation and the hiring of additional lawyers on both sides of the fence.
There are more regulations, more complications and fewer solutions with this bill. For that reason I will certainly be opposing this bill in second reading. I know that the government has been receiving a great deal of input on the bill since its introduction, and I hope that it will apply the rules of common sense and step back from this legislation and invite a far greater degree of consultation than we've seen so far.
C. Serwa: Actually, I jumped up too quickly; I think the member for Port Coquitlam was going to rise. I'll give him another chance to take potshots at me.
An Hon. Member: I wouldn't take potshots at you.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much. I appreciate that remark.
I take a great deal of pleasure in speaking on the philosophy and principles of Bill 50, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1994. I am going to speak in opposition to it, because it's not really a residential tenancy act; it's a rent control act. No matter how you couch the words, that's clearly what it is.
While I'm talking about it, I think we should explore the rental market. Who rents, and why do they rent? I think it's very important to note that. They may be young married couples, single mothers, single males or seniors in our community. They may be those who are working in jobs that ordinary British Columbians work in, where there isn't the great pay that the government keeps talking about; they are working in a labour market that pays them in accordance with what the labour market can get. They don't have a lot of money to spare, so they can't afford a down payment on permanent accommodation. I think everyone has the dream of owning their own home, and that's great. I hope that the environment will create that opportunity. These folks are captured in the rental market. I understand that, and I understand why they're there. The fact is that their financial remuneration dictates that they will probably continue on in that market. They rightfully have some concerns.
When we explore the facts, we find that a substantial number of British Columbians -- perhaps one-third -- fall into the category of those who rent accommodation in one form or another. So it's a large group. We understand the aspect that, fundamentally, it has to do with monetary concerns. They are unable to raise a down payment and get into their own accommodation -- their own home, duplex, condominium or whatever. The government is coming out with this purely shallow political bill to somehow quiet the concerns of renters in the province. Does the government really care when they speak about poor people in British Columbia, or is caring about poor people more of the shallow theatrics that the hon. minister used to demonstrate when she was in opposition? I ask you, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 11787 ]
Social Credit was the first provincial government in Canada to bring in homeowner grants. After a period of time, we recognized that renters were not treated fairly and equitably in terms of homeowner grants, so we came out with another program: the renter's tax credit. What did this government, which cares about costs to renters, do shortly after their election? Why, they cancelled the renter's tax credit. Do you know what that meant, hon. Speaker? Families needed things that they couldn't afford, but when they filled in their income tax forms, they got back a renter's tax credit. When that vanished, it meant that a lot of people who have to drive a car to work -- and a car is not a luxury -- couldn't afford to license and renew the insurance on that car. It has been gone for two years; it's history. Young couples, seniors and others in society fall into that large rental market. Does the government care? No.
This government will do anything to look good, always striving for that altruistic effect -- for show. The reality is that a government has to be measured by its deeds, not by its words. And the commitment to renters in the province, with the removal of the renter's tax credit, has been the shoddiest demonstration -- a lack of commitment to those who really need any form of assistance. They're left to pay the full brunt of school taxes. There's no recovery and no return. We're creating renters. This current socialist government is treating renters as a lower class of individuals than another class. They've segregated two classes of people: those who are fortunate enough to own homes and get the homeowner grant, and renters, who are excluded.
I'm not comforted by this shallow, hypocritical bill. The bill is looking at a number of things. Is there actually a problem? Is there a need for this legislation? Well, their socialist friends -- there are still some out there, but there used to be a lot more -- have obviously reached the ear of this government. Those who are in the rental market now are saying: "Hey, that's a good idea. Freeze rents, get after those nasty landlords and keep our costs low." Government taxes aren't holding the line, all of the input costs into the system aren't holding the line, but we're going to hold those nasty landlords to low rents to satisfy those vocal socialist activists that are now in the rental market.
What we're going to miss -- and this is the important thing -- is all of the other people who are coming along: young people and those that are moving into this province looking for rental accommodation. There is no question that when you get a government bureaucracy interfering with the private system in a widespread and far-reaching manner, there are going to be horrendous cost increases. The strange thing about this is that government spin doctors believe they can really sell this to renters in the province.
If they think beyond the immediate and look at the long term, this is going to cost landlords a great deal more. That's going to have to be directly reflected in justifiably increased rents to the tenants that this government says they're supposedly trying to protect. It's going to boomerang very quickly.
Even worse than that, you're going to be drying up the rental market. The private sector has done a phenomenally good job of providing rental accommodations for everyone, all wages and incomes, from subsidized housing on up. They have done the job and will continue to do the job without government interference. The best measure for maintaining competitive rents is a very good, healthy, competitive system.
[4:30]
The government is not making a healthy, competitive system. I don't see any big initiative or endeavour on the part of those who support the government -- the unions -- to invest large amounts of union funds in subsidized housing. They invest their union funds where they will get the best return -- in many cases outside of Canada in international firms. They bad-mouth multinational firms, but at the same time they invest money there to get a healthier return for their pension funds. Why don't they invest in housing? Because it's very difficult. With this piece of legislation this government will drive the small landlords -- who are providing rental accommodation in a sensitive, caring way -- right out of the marketplace. Will rental accommodation be provided? It probably will, by large corporations.
Has this been tried before? Yes it has. From 1972 to 1975 it was tried by the same type of socialist government. And what happened? Rental increases prior to that time were very modest, like they are now -- averaging 2 or 3 percent a year. It's tolerable; it has sort of been keeping up with inflation, and with the increasing costs it's reasonable. When the NDP came in with their program and rental controls in 1972 to 1975, they restricted rent increases to a maximum of 10 percent per year. What a signal out there! Every landlord in the province said: "Well, I'm legislated. I can get 10 percent, rather than 2 or 3 percent." If you want to track the explosive costs and increases in rental accommodation in the province, you can track it right back to that time. It failed miserably. The people it hurt the most were the people who really needed that support: the individuals who, for a variety of reasons, did not have that ability to get the high-paying jobs. We hurt them at that time, and you're going to hurt those people again. There is absolutely no way that this shallow, shoddy, flawed piece of legislation can serve the people it is purported to serve.
This government is very foolish to proceed after second reading with this piece of legislation, because you're not going to get the support from the people you think you're supporting. It's just not going to work. It's just as bad as giving kids candy. You give them candy and you think you're being a good parent. By the time they are 21 and their teeth have rotted out of their heads, you have second thoughts. That's exactly what will happen with the tenants who are going to be impacted with this. You're going to increase the costs for the landlords; that's realistic. You're going to increase the cost to the taxpayer for the bureaucracy you're going to create. The only job creation that any of you individuals on the government side can be proud of is expanding the bureaucracy: a 10 percent increase in the BCGEU in the past two and a half years. Hip, hip, hooray!
The taxpayers can stand only so much bureaucracy, and you're not providing any better standard of services or delivery of any product to the taxpayers. You're not protecting the individuals you are purporting to protect, and this piece of legislation is another startling example of radical left-wing socialism run rampant. Mr. Williams, a former opposition member, said: "If you think we were radical before, just wait until next time." Well, we're here at the next time and, by golly, you're here. You should learn from history. The people of the province were not well served by that former piece of legislation in that '72-75 period.
The rentalsman has a very popular and well-listened-to open-line show in my constituency. He works for CKOV. He confirms that it didn't work then. So why are we doing it again, other than for a cheap political type of heightened profile for a short interval? They say a drowning man will clutch at straws, and I suppose a drowning party will clutch at anything as well, and this is an example. But this is poor legislation. It won't
[ Page 11788 ]
serve the taxpayer, it won't serve the landlord, it won't serve the public interest, and it will not serve the tenants who are in the market and those who are coming into the renters' market. It won't serve them well at all. If there was ever a piece of legislation that should have that famous second look taken at it, this sure falls into that category.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to follow my colleague for Okanagan West, at whom, as I said a few minutes ago, I won't take any potshots. I may disagree with his comments and some of his logic, but that's what this is all about -- a debate.
A number of points have been raised by members in both opposition parties, saying that this piece of legislation is rent control. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it's not rent control. Nowhere in this bill do I see anything that says: "Thou shalt not raise rents more than 10 percent." The hon. member for Okanagan West alluded to that being the case in 1972-75. He's quite correct that that was when rents could be raised by 10 percent. What he forgets to mention is that we were in a period of rapid inflation in this country at that time, and 10 percent was what you could raise rents according to law. Most people would have raised it more, given the fact that inflation was often 12, 14 or 15 percent. So people didn't go out and raise rents to the maximum that they could gouge; they were raising them to the maximum that the market would allow them at the time. The fact was that we were going through a period of rapid inflation, which had nothing to do with the supply of housing or with the fact that the bill on rent control had come into place. It had everything to do with the fact that we were in a period of rapid inflation. Previous to 1972-75, before the OPEC oil increases, inflation was running at 2 to 3 percent, so rents and prices increased at a rate of 2 to 3 percent. That's what was taking place. It had nothing to do with the ideology of a government in power.
Today we have another problem; that is, whereas 20 years ago rental housing was a fairly common form of construction, it's not taking place today. The market is constructing homes for single-family homeowners and a great deal of condominiums. Again, the member said that that is because of the lack of attractiveness in the housing market for building rental accommodation. But is that because of regulation? No, as hon. members have already said, it's because the current system of letting the free market rule is dictating what's being built. We haven't had any regulation, and yet we still don't have any rental units being built. Something doesn't quite catch in the opposition's argument.
I hear from members of the Liberal Party that what's needed is more social housing, that we should be putting our energies into building social housing. This province has done a great deal in that area, and we'd like to do more. Unfortunately, their brethren in Ottawa, the federal Liberal Party, has gutted the budget for building social housing in this province and, in fact, in this country. If the province wants to go out and build social housing, as they are suggesting, we have to do it with 100 percent of the cost, as opposed to the cost-sharing arrangements that currently exist but expire at the end of the month. It's a fact, actually, that their Liberal brethren will acknowledge, as they did recently at an opening of a social housing project in my own riding. After July of this year, the fact is that there will be no more federal government money to build social housing. So I don't know where these units they want us to build are going to come from without us increasing the budget at the provincial level -- which they will then condemn because we're increasing spending, even though it's to meet a goal that they want us to meet.
I've also heard problems regarding some of the other aspects of this bill, such as the ability to change locks and to force minor repairs. They're making it out as though all tenants are suddenly going to change the locks, or all tenants are suddenly going to take hammers and 2-by-4s or call in tradespeople to make repairs because they want the repairs even though they're not necessary.
But again, hon. Speaker, if you examine the bill, you'll see that's not quite the case. Through this piece of legislation, tenants will have the right to change locks, but only after they've made an application to the court and have been able to demonstrate the need to do that. Again, tenants will have the right to make repairs or to have repairs done in their rental accommodation, but specific repairs are spelled out in the bill. They're not cosmetic repairs but major repairs: burst pipes, blocked sewage -- that sort of thing. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with being able to live in accommodation where you don't have to worry about burst pipes, where you don't have to worry about whether the locks actually work on your door, where you don't have to worry about whether your toilet is going to block up? What's wrong with a tenant expecting to live in decent accommodation? Nothing, I say.
I was on city council in the community of Port Coquitlam. I will always remember the case of a building that looked run-down, its wooden stairs rotting away. There were about 15 families, housed in 15 rooms; most of them were on social assistance. The city council tried, over an 18-month period, to get the building brought up to code. Each time, the owners of the building would come to council and say that they couldn't do this and couldn't do that and that it was too expensive. The landlord said they weren't offering luxury accommodation; they were geared to people on welfare. "You know people on welfare; they can put up with certain inconveniences."
I was on the planning committee at the time, and the planner said: "Look, this is the third time we've dealt with this, and I have serious concerns." So I went round to this building. I had to go up the stairs, and the railing gave way; it was that rotten. I got up the stairs and went down a long hallway, which had one light bulb at one end and a rotting, damp, bug-infested carpet. And each of the doors.... I spoke to the tenants. I'd go inside these rooms, and there were families inside there. They didn't know how to complain. They wanted things fixed, but they were also terrified that if they did complain they would be forced out. We raised this issue at the council meeting. We brought a report back, saying that the city had to get these repairs done, or the building was so far gone that it might have to be closed down.
The TV stations got wind of this because the issue was raised at the council meeting, and they came out. It's amazing what happened when television cameras ran a story on the evening news about this hellhole of a building. The owners suddenly decided that maybe it wasn't that expensive to replace the railings; maybe it wasn't that expensive to ensure that the heating system was adequate or the wiring was adequate; and maybe it wasn't wrong that these people who were on social assistance should have a decent place to live. The building is still pretty run-down, but it now meets the code. But it shouldn't have taken those people 18 months to have repairs done to that building that the rest of us would take for granted when looking for rental accommodation.
[ Page 11789 ]
This bill isn't going to affect most of the responsible landlords in this province, because most landlords make sure the plumbing, wiring, toilets and sewage systems are up to standard and that they work -- or that if there is a problem, it's fixed right away. This legislation won't affect them, because they're already doing their job. This legislation will help those people who are currently being taken advantage of, who don't think they have the power to get the changes made, who too often don't have the ability to go out and seek other accommodation, or who cannot get into social housing because of a long waiting line -- a waiting line that's getting longer because of the lack of money being made available by the federal government, which is shirking its responsibility. That's who this legislation is going to help. It's also going to help those people who, every time they get an increase in the social assistance housing allowance for rent, see that increase suddenly taken up by the landlord. If there's an extra $20 or $30 increase in their allowance for accommodation, boom, that is gone into the landlord's pocket.
[4:45]
We talked about the issue of locks. It can be pretty disconcerting to be minding your own business, watching television or what have you, or to have gone out, and then find out that your landlord has come into your apartment. The first time it happens there may be a very legitimate reason. But if you're a single woman living by yourself and it happens on more than one occasion, you're sort of wondering what's going on. That is a complaint from tenants to my constituency office that surfaces again and again; it's one of their top concerns.
Yet again I throw the argument out that that clause would not affect responsible landlords, because most responsible landlords let you know. They tell you that they're doing something -- maybe coming in to paint on Saturday -- and they ask if it is okay. They say they'll be in between three and four, or what have you. They let you know. But too often it happens that people are not notified. Now we have the ability through this clause to deal with that. It's not done lightly -- it's not done at the whim of the tenant -- but it is done when the tenant demonstrates to a court that there is a probable reason for concern. They now have the ability to take some power into their own hands and have a little control over what goes on in the suite they are paying their money to rent.
This piece of legislation addresses some important concerns in the rental marketplace. It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's going to solve a great number of them. It's going to make it so that tenants feel they have a greater sense of security about what is going to happen over the few years that their contract is in place, and that the condition of their unit is not going to deteriorate -- or if it does, that repairs can be made. Their own sense of security is also enhanced.
This is a piece of legislation that I think is long overdue. It is not going to stop the rental housing market, as some of the members of the opposition seem to think it will. It will provide some peace of mind to tenants, and I think that's extremely important. So I have no trouble supporting Bill 50, and I hope the other members of the opposition can finally come around and see that Bill 50 is a good piece of legislation.
C. Tanner: I rise today to talk to Bill 50, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act.
I think the minister and some of the members on this side and the member who last spoke should remember what we're amending; we're amending an act that protects tenants in some respects. I think some genuine concerns have been raised on this side of the House about this set of amendments. The concern raised by the member who last spoke, about a circumstance that existed in his constituency, is a genuine one. I, by coincidence, happened to see the TV program. I'm pleased to hear that some repairs were made to that building, because I too, like he, was shocked when I saw what was on TV.
But there is something between what he is talking about and what some members on this side of the House are talking about -- not necessarily my party, but some members on this side of the House. I think they're both extreme cases. I think the vast majority of tenants and landlords are responsible people who live together in reasonable harmony. I suppose nobody likes to pay a large sum of money out of their pocket every month -- 25 percent of their income, perhaps -- to somebody else, if there is a way of not having to do that. But the fact of the matter is, and the facts of life are, that they have to. If they can do that in an amicable manner, which, generally speaking, they can.... It's the way we live. I think some members have pointed out that frequently it's the younger members of society just starting out, and sometimes the older members of society finishing up who, by choice, sell their larger houses and move into rental accommodation.
It seems to me that all members of the House have been talking about a circumstance that in some respects is extreme. They are not recognizing the fact that many working people see the simple act of buying another house and having tenants in there as an investment. It's a simple thing to do, compared to going into the market or going into business for themselves. It's a fairly easy way for them to invest money and hopefully reap a profit. Many people I know have eventually got into business that way. They weren't there to be tenants; they were there as a small investment of their income, which they had managed to save and put aside. Those people are probably the best landlords you could get; they're concerned about their tenants, and they want to make sure their property is well looked after, but they're concerned about the fact that their investment is well protected. They're frequently there looking after their tenants, and the tenants are, in my view and from my experience, generally pleased to see them. Relationships frequently develop between tenants and landlords, which is mutually profitable in many respects.
What concerns me about this bill is the middle ground, the vast majority of which is not being addressed in this bill. The minister said she talked to 90 different groups of landlords and tenants. I suspect, from the other comments she made, that of those 90 groups she talked to, the majority of them were tenants. Consistently through her address to this House, I thought I detected the idea that the landlord is not necessarily right, but that the tenant nearly always is. I'm sure that if you went to somebody who listens to arbitrations, you would find that's the vast majority of cases. It's a bit like asking a policeman what his view of life is when all he treats are criminals. In fact, the groups that you're talking to, Madam Minister, and the groups that the previous speaker was addressing in his constituency and his municipality are generally people who have a complaint.
I can tell an equally strong sob story of a landlord in my constituency who had a beautiful house on the water which he rented. The landlord and the tenant fell out, and the tenant devastated the house and made an absolute mess of it. The landlord went to arbitration and wasn't listened to. He took a movie of the damage; he took evidence. He did everything that was required, but it didn't satisfy the
[ Page 11790 ]
arbitrator in this case, and the tenant got away with behaving in a most uncivilized manner. There are cases on both sides of that argument. I don't think that's the case. I think this bill is an attempt to solve some problems. It's not a bad one, but it's not good enough.
It's very badly written, Madam Minister. I don't know who you got to write it for you, but it's not well done. As was pointed out by the member for Okanagan East, there are far too many references and cross-references to other bills. There's got to be a simpler way of doing it than this.
I ask that the minister perhaps do something that the previous Minister of Tourism, responsible for heritage conservation, did in the last session of this House, when she brought in the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1993. Because it was such a far-reaching bill and such a large change, she let it die on the order paper, and it came back again and is being debated in this parliament as Bill 21. In my mind it is a better bill because of it. This bill needs the same treatment. It needs to sit out there and let more people have input and have different points of view addressed besides those expressed in this House.
As a consequence of that thought, I introduce an amendment. I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 50 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
On the amendment.
C. Tanner: May I continue to speak?
Deputy Speaker: You may indeed. You still have your first speech time.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, am I now speaking to the amendment or to the bill?
Deputy Speaker: Once you have moved the amendment, technically you are speaking to it; however, a certain latitude is allowed.
C. Tanner: I'm now speaking to the amendment. I listened very carefully to what some of the members on this side said. In one specific case, the member for Okanagan East had a lot to say. To my mind a lot of it wasn't really pertinent to the bill, but there was one gem in what she said. I don't know whether I've got it exactly right, but she said that the closer the tenants are to their landlord, the better the relationship. I think that's true. That's why my amendment is here: to give the minister another chance to look at this bill. She's introducing a complication between the tenants and the landlord which I believe won't enhance the situation.
The minister needs to reconsider some of the input that she's heard from this side. She needs to hear from the previous rentalsman, Mr. Clark -- whatever his title was. She needs to talk to the real estate boards that have interceded on this bill. She certainly needs to talk to some of the people whose letters I see in our local paper. And further, she needs to discuss the details of her bill with her legislative writers.
You'll find that this bill will create more trouble than it will help. I do not fault the minister for trying; it was a genuine attempt to find a resolution to a minor problem. But I think she will create more problems than she will solve. My suggestion of a six-month hoist of this bill will give her that time.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. The minister herself has indicated that there are 450,000 tenants in British Columbia. I believe that was the number she stated. It is my understanding that in the 11 working days since this bill has been introduced, not 1 percent of those tenants or the landlords related to them have been aware that this bill is now before the House. It would be wise, since so many people are going to be affected by the pros or cons of this particular bill, to have it out so they could have the opportunity to respond to it and recommend whatever changes they felt necessary. Even if both the tenants and the landlords were all to come back and say, "We are in favour of this bill," then the minister and the government would be in the position of having people affirming what's being brought forward.
Where people live and the kind of housing they have are fundamental to their everyday lives. There is an urgency for some people; I agree there is an urgency for many people. But the urgency is also that we do it right the first time, and that we don't complicate the situation and make it more difficult for more people.
The minister indicated that she wanted to have a level playing field. It's very clear that we all agree that we need to have a level playing field and a fair and balanced law that is seen by people to be fair and balanced and is not seen to be either on one side or the other. We need to get by the situation where one type of government is seen as favouring landlords on one hand, and another type of government is seen as favouring tenants on the other hand.
[5:00]
What we mean is that the people are able to see that the government is bringing balanced legislation forward that favours interaction between landlords and tenants, as the hon. member said. In many cases, these are the same people. Sometimes you will find that landlords are tenants, and tenants are also landlords. So we're not talking about either/or; we're talking about people who are involved in both of those relationships at different times -- or even at the same time. We want a system that enables housing development and stock in this province to continue to increase and be made more available to the community at large.
The minister also indicated in her presentation that each building is unique, and it's that uniqueness that rules, regulations and acts need to be broad enough and fair enough to take into account. That uniqueness is not aptly portrayed in the presentation that has come before us.
The minister also indicated that she's in agreement that people must have a reasonable return for their rental property -- the same as a person who's leasing a car or renting out cleaning equipment or whatever else the service might be. But I don't think it is the place of the government to be setting what is reasonable in every case.
This is where we come into this argument about whether it's rent control or rent regulation, and it certainly is rent regulation. The terminology, whether it's regulation or control, is very fine. A reasonable return in one person's mind is 1 percent; in another person's mind it may be 10 percent; in another person's mind it may be 15 percent. It's also talking about amortization over the capital life of a particular project. That makes a difference to the person who is investing. If you are investing in a short-term project.... Say a person is 55 years of age, and they've got ten years to go to retirement. They want an investment for the next ten years. That's different from the person who's trying to invest that money over a 40-year project. So it's not easy for an outside person to come in and say: "This is not only reasonable, this is the way you must handle your investments." That's part of the implication of this act. It's
[ Page 11791 ]
talking about a formula that is going to be developed, but there's no indication of what that formula is.
People would have far more assurance if the act were put out to study along with the definitions and regulations, so people can say: "Yes, if these are the regulations and definitions, then we're in favour." If they want to make changes to some of those, they have the opportunity to do so. It's always much more constructive, as we've seen. The minister was aware of this in Social Services, where the minister was previously involved. They went out and did a study. They came back in, and they sent the results out to be reviewed. They're being brought back in now with support and encouragement, and only minor questions for clarification. It's the kind of process the minister went through in another ministry, which has worked extremely well. I would encourage her to follow that in this particular ministry as well.
One of the other areas of concern, both of tenants and of landlords, that is not mentioned and that hasn't been discussed so far is about where and how the arbitrations and court cases can be carried out. It's not clear who will bear the cost of these. What will the cost be? What will the results be, and how will that be managed? That needs to be clarified so people can understand and have assurance.
Over and apart from the cost, the majority of landlords -- other than the full-time professional landlord whose business it is to manage and look after his property, and who is increasingly becoming a minor player in the overall field of rentals at this point -- and tenants, for that matter, are working people. They have jobs, they're trying to survive, and they're renting one, two or three units as part of their overall income. It's not easy. In fact, it's very difficult for them to leave their place of work for a day, half a day or whatever it takes to be part of the arbitration proceeding. It's very difficult for them to take time out at the required time to go to court; it's a time they're not able to set themselves. It's also very difficult for many renters who are working and cannot afford to even provide day care for their children in order to go to arbitrations or court hearings.
On behalf of both renters and landlords, I say the process needs to be clear as to how these people are going to be able to participate without suffering at their job. Not many employers are happy about people taking extra time away from their work. For many of them, it would mean losing pay for the particular time they're away, plus the difficulty of travel. The other difficulty is that there's no clarity. One of the comments from those who were in favour of the bill was, "Well, don't be worried about it being abused, because there are not many low-income people in downtown Vancouver, for instance, who will be able to travel out to the Burnaby office," where they assume they would have to go to deal with this. Therefore the people who may have the greatest need to use this bill are the very ones, according to the statement of the people who support it, who are not going to be able to get out and have the opportunity to deal with it.
There are many questions. For a bill that affects so many people, 11 working days after it comes in is not enough time for them to hear about it and to respond. I heartily encourage the passing of this amendment so that the bill can go out, the public can participate in it, and it can be brought in and become effective for all of the people concerned.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise in support of this reasoned amendment from the opposition that seeks to allow for a greater period of public input into this bill. I think there are several critical reasons why far more involvement and input is needed with respect to this particular legislation, because I fear -- as the member for Vancouver-Langara has indicated -- that there will be some immediate repercussions if this particular bill is enacted.
I can see a number of strategies, for example, that some landlords may employ, and the potential for the number of illegal suites in the province to increase dramatically, which is something I talked about during second reading debate. I think it's significant to note that at some future time the government intends to address the issue of illegal suites in the province, with some method of assisting local governments in dealing with what is becoming a very difficult and challenging problem: how to identify the number of illegal suites and with the rental accommodation that doesn't qualify under this particular bill.
As I indicated in my remarks on second reading, I can see that rental units will be taken off the market as a result of this legislation and will be reintroduced at some future date as suites that won't qualify under Bill 50. With respect to section 18(b), subsection (2.1) states:
"A person who coerces, threatens, intimidates or harasses a tenant to deter the tenant from making an application under this Act, or in retaliation for seeking or obtaining a remedy under this Act, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $5000."
There's nothing to prevent the landlord from simply taking the unit off the market. I've provided copies of this bill to landlords who have rental accommodation. That could well happen. Either that, or they're going to sell. Surely a six-month period, to allow consultation to take place.... Why don't we have some sort of summit in this province involving landlords' and tenants' groups, to try to determine what impact this legislation might have? Where's the record of discussion? Can the minister table in this House a record of the landlords who have been consulted on this particular bill? Have they viewed it? What input have they been able to provide? In closing debate, the minister will hopefully provide us with the names of landlords who are enthusiastically in support of this legislation, who are not in any way concerned about the impact it may have on their decisions to continue to be landlords in British Columbia.
As I indicated, when we have what amounts to a building concern -- not a building crisis -- about the number of rental units on the market and when we have the fact that fast-growing municipalities throughout this province are grappling with the issue of how to register illegal suites, surely this type of legislation, which could exacerbate those problems, deserves a longer period of time for review than 11 days. I think this is a reasoned amendment by the opposition. It would allow for input, which it appears was sadly lacking during the time frame leading up to the introduction of this bill in the House. I think that a prudent government, which claims that it's protecting tenants and making the rental market fairer with this bill, would, on the other side of the coin, recognize the potential for the disappearance of rental units as a result of this legislation; would step back and take a sober second look at the potential implications; and, more important than that, would invite input from both landlords' and tenants' associations, which appears to us to have simply not been present when this legislation was drafted.
[5:15]
I'm pleased to stand in my place today and support this reasoned amendment from the opposition. I think that the intervening six months would create a far better climate for the eventual introduction of changes to the Residential Tenancy Act which would have the universal support and understanding of all parties. I would urge the government
[ Page 11792 ]
side of the House to support this reasoned amendment. I'm pleased to speak in favour of it today.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I stand to oppose this stalling tactic. As I listen to the opposition, I cannot think of anything other than that this motion is a stalling tactic. While I will address legitimate concerns that were raised in second reading debate, at this time I'd like to put on the record what I believe motivates the Liberal opposition. Putting forward this motion to stall the debate and passage of this bill for six months, I suggest, is nothing more than the Liberal opposition getting their own act together. What we have here is the Leader of the Opposition standing on both sides of the fence. When he was the mayor of Vancouver I believe that he chaired a mayor's committee dealing with this very real issue in the rental housing market. I have some specific quotes from the then mayor of Vancouver, just to point out how this Liberal opposition -- depending on the circumstance, depending on what they hope to be able to politically achieve by the words that come out of their mouths.... Back in January 1990, the mayor said:
"Rent review doesn't interfere with the market. It doesn't interfere with investment in housing.... What it does interfere with is housing speculation. It interferes with a person who is looking at an apartment and says: 'What I can do here is go in there and increase all of those rentals and create a new paper value for this apartment, and I'll sell it'."
Which side is this opposition on? Are they on the side of those speculators or are they on the side of renters who want some protection and fairness in the marketplace? I suggest that that's why this opposition is stalling. They want six months because they want to figure out which side they are on and whose side they stand for. Is it the speculators, the people who are abusing their rights in the marketplace, or the people who rely on the rental market or rental stock to provide decent and safe housing?
Let me go on. I will quote from the mayor's article of February 1990:
"Under my proposal, tenants and landlords are expected to work together. If requested, landlords will be required to justify rent increases to their tenant. If the tenants are not satisfied, then they can appeal to a newly established rent review commission."
My question to the opposition is: what's different now? Why did the Leader of the Opposition take that position in that day and age, and now, when the government is responsibly putting forward a model that provides fairness, equity and balance in that rental market, all of a sudden you're looking to stall? You're suggesting that there is not a role for government in the marketplace.
Let me go on and quote from another article. This one is from the Vancouver Sun, January 1990. In this article the mayor favours pressure from municipal councils, renters and tenants' rights groups to persuade the province to re-establish a rent review board. Again I ask you: what has changed? I suggest that the only thing that has changed is that you are being held accountable for your words, you are being held accountable for your record, and you want to play both sides. You want to speak to the speculators, you want to talk to the investors and you want to ignore renters in this province. This government is not prepared to ignore renters. This government is proposing a fair and balanced approach to the rental market that provides people with some real options -- a simple system where they can put their case when they feel that they are subject to unconscionable rent increases.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Campbell |
|
Hurd |
Gingell |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Serwa |
Mitchell |
|
Wilson |
Tanner |
Anderson |
|
M. de Jong |
Symons |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
|
H. De Jong |
|
NAYS -- 35 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Barlee |
Blencoe |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Randall |
|
Beattie |
Farnworth |
Doyle |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Kasper |
Brewin |
|
Copping |
Lovick |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
|
Boone |
On the main motion.
D. Symons: I would like to raise a few questions about the bill, because there are some things in it that I can agree with. I agree with the portions that are asking the landlord to keep the place in good repair. I can even agree with the concept of seeing that there aren't excessive rent increases. But what I can't agree with....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
The member may wish to wait a second until the members who are leaving have had an opportunity to leave.
D. Symons: I will be fairly brief, and we can get down to the vote.
What I can't agree with is the lack of balance in this bill. Indeed, I find that problem with a good number of bills this government is bringing forward. They lack the needed balance. In this bill, I see spelled out very carefully what the responsibilities of the landlord are. I do not see in here the balancing part: the responsibilities of the tenant. Somehow I would like to see some of that brought in. From the way the act is written, if the landlord wants to raise the rent, maybe even reasonably so, there are going to be a great many problems built into it with the arbitration process and all the rest. I suspect the government is hoping that by putting enough red tape in their way, the landlords will simply say that it's not worth the bother. But when you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in rental units, you are going to take that bother. A great deal of bureaucracy is going to be needed to handle the routines set up in this bill. But as I mentioned earlier, what bothers me most of all is the lack of balance in it.
I'd like to describe a situation that has come to my attention recently and that this bill should address but doesn't. A tenant moved into a house that was rented out because the owners had to move into town. The husband needed some treatment at the Workers' Compensation Board. He lived out in Langley, and they rented their
[ Page 11793 ]
Langley home. Within the first two months, they discovered that the people who rented the home had misrepresented themselves. One lady and her children were moving in, and it turned out that another friend moved in with her children as well. So there were many more people in the house than they were first told.
[5:30]
Quickly it turned out that they stopped paying their rent. The person who owned the home first attempted to get them to pay the rent and then attempted to get them evicted. That proved to be a rather difficult task, apparently, because the rentalsman seemed to protect the tenants more than the landlord. Eventually they got a court order to remove these people from the house. The people simply refused to obey the court order, and they stayed there until the bailiff was almost at the door, at which point they moved out. In the meantime, they had done a fair amount of damage to the house. So what we have here is back rent not being paid, the court order ordering them out -- which meant that the landlord had to go to the expense of getting that order -- and eventually the people moving out. There was still no recourse for the owner of that home to get the money.
I see all sorts of things built into this bill where the landlord can pay if the tenant has a just grievance; I see very little in it where the landlord can collect if the tenant is at fault. This is the problem. In this situation the person had a job, so the owner of the home eventually applied to the courts for a garnishee of wages. As soon as that garnishee went through, the person quit the job and went on welfare, which cost the taxpayer of this province money. She wasn't going to pay for the place that they had damaged or the rent that they had not paid for the month and a half that it took to get them kicked out of the house. All these things are problems that landlords face. I see this act addressing situations that the tenants face, but I don't see the balance in looking at both sides of the issue.
That is my concern. I would like to see a bill that brings in a balance -- one that protects tenants, as this bill does, but that at the same time protects landlords against bad tenants. There are bad tenants in this world as well, and this bill doesn't seem to reflect that.
T. Perry: I'm going to be voting in favour of this bill.
Interjections.
T. Perry: I think it's very good news.
Members of the opposition are surprised, but that may be because they haven't read the bill or thought about what this bill actually means. Perhaps they're not actually in touch with many of the tenants in their own constituencies. Maybe they don't deal with phone calls and letters from people who have had difficulty with a landlord or with unreasonable rent increases.
I remember, upon first being elected about five years ago, that that was a major concern of tenants. The rental situation was exceedingly tight at that time. It has eased a little since then, and I haven't had to deal with quite as many of them. But it's a major part of the job of a conscientious MLA to deal with complaints from tenants who have suddenly been hit with, let's say, a 15, 20, 25 or 30 percent increase in rent without any reason and who are just at the margin of what they can pay -- they literally can't afford more. They may have been in a building for years, sometimes decades, in a very stable neighbourhood, and then suddenly, for apparently arbitrary reasons, they are out, because they literally can't cope with the situation. That's community-busting; even though it happens to only one person at a time, it's community-busting. It's not good for people's health and welfare overall. It tends to provoke stress, which can lead to illness and increased costs to society through the Medical Services Plan and hospitalization. It's not good for anybody.
You know what really intrigues me, hon. Speaker? You would know this, although sadly, through the rules of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition, you're mute on this issue. I see you're even laughing, but I find it sad, hon. Speaker, that you of all people have to be mute on this, because....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The attacks on the Chair are uncalled for.
T. Perry: Please, lest there be any confusion out there in television land for couch potatoes or others who are watching us right now, those are not meant as attacks on the Speaker; those remarks were meant as compliments to the very esteemed and distinguished Speaker.
Interjection.
T. Perry: Those on the other side who think couch potato is a dishonourable term, think again. There are many very honourable couch potatoes in British Columbia, just as there are honourable members in this House.
Hon. Speaker, I was starting to say that you of all people would surely want to speak to this bill. Far be it for me to presume to speak for you, although I know that many people in your riding of Vancouver-Burrard will be pleased with this bill, because it will protect them in a riding where the majority of electors and residents are tenants. In my riding, I believe a majority -- I forget the exact percentage, something over 50 percent -- of the residents and electors are tenants.
I think it's a balanced bill, in contrast to what the member for Richmond Centre just said. I think it has taken a modest approach to a problem to deal with unusual situations where the landlord is not taking a fair approach to the tenant. Most landlords are reasonable; the vast majority want good relations with their tenants, because they know that a good, stable tenant is good for them, and also because they're decent people.
Some landlords will respond to pressures in the marketplace, be they increases in residential taxes which they must pay or decreases in the vacancy rate -- a hot rental market such that they think they can take advantage of tenants -- and will either pass legitimate costs with a slight adjustment upwards on to tenants or simply take advantage of the fact that there are very few places to rent. There must be some protection for tenants in that situation. The rental housing supply is not increasing in most parts of the province. It's very difficult to construct new rental housing in the current economy.
One of my entrees into politics was at a time when rental housing was rapidly being destroyed with not only the complicity but the open encouragement of the former mayor of Vancouver, who is now the leader of the Liberal Party. Perhaps that explains why a party that bears the name "Liberal" has so little trace of liberalism left that it would desert the great traditions of free independent thought and looking after the little person, which Liberal parties have represented at times in Canadian history. The Liberal Party at the federal level under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for example, sometimes looked after the interests of the little person -- not always, but at least they had it within their mandate to sometimes think about the common Canadian. The Liberal Party in Ontario under David Peterson, for all its profligate
[ Page 11794 ]
spending and the fact that it brought Ontario to the brink of financial ruin, did pass a rental housing protection act -- albeit in a coalition government with the NDP in those days. They were forced to that point by the NDP when the Liberals were a potential minority government. There were Liberals in Ontario who saw the needs of tenants as equally significant to those of landlords -- perhaps more so, in that there are far more tenants than there are landlords, and majority interests sometimes ought to have precedence over the minority.
What I find shocking is that the Liberal Party in British Columbia purports to hold the name "Liberal" when in fact it is conservative in every conceivable sense of the word. It supports mining in the Tatshenshini, it's against forest renewal, it's against a sustainable forest industry in this province, and now we have it coming out against the most modest attempt to protect tenants. Shame on you! I see the member for Vancouver-Langara, one of the only remaining small-l liberals left and who is concerned about poor people, smiling sheepishly, perhaps because he realizes how far his party has moved to the right and how little they represent the ordinary person in British Columbia.
Here we have a bill that is a modest attempt not at rent control and not even at systemic rent review but simply at giving the tenant the opportunity under the law to challenge an unfair adjustment to their rent through an independent arbitrator. It's a modest attempt. Perhaps it doesn't go as far as some people in the governing party would have liked to go. It certainly does not go as far as many tenants' organizations, or tenants who have had a rough experience in the past, would have liked the law to go. It did respect the fact that most landlords are not only law-abiding but interested in their tenants, and they're not trying to rip off their tenants. In most cases, the relationship between landlord and tenant is reasonably peaceable, ought to remain that way and does not require a lot of interference by the state. This is a modest bill. It's good government, it's going to make things better for people, and time will show that it will work in the interests of tenants. If minor problems arise from it, it can always be adjusted in the future.
I would like to encourage the Liberal opposition to think again. I don't expect that much from the Reform Party or the Social Credit MLAs. I expect them to be hardheaded and to ask good questions in question period, unlike the Liberals. When the Reformers and the Socreds stand up, it's worth picking my nose up from the newspaper to think that they, or the leader of the PDA, might actually ask about something interesting, but I don't expect them to support the interests of tenants. That would be asking too much of the Reformers and the Socreds. But the Liberals? Well, maybe they ought to think again. Who do they really represent? Is it only the Howe Street bankers? Is it only what's-his-name, the chap who wants to build big casinos on aboriginal lands and rake in the money -- Murray Pezim? Is it only people like that, or Jim Pattison, or Peter Brown, who support the Liberals now? Is it only stock market scam artists who support the Liberals, or don't they have any roots left in the community, like those the member for Vancouver-Langara occasionally speaks for? Search your souls. Think about it again. This is a good bill, and it might actually feel good supporting something that's going to be in the interests of the public. I'm looking forward to voting for it.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak briefly to Bill 50, the NDP'S rent control act, and to reply a bit to the last member who spoke.
I've listened in the House today, and also in my office, to comments made about the bill. What I've heard from the Liberals, the PDA and the NDP seemed more of an attack on parties. I just heard the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain attack the Liberals. It's not the Liberals' bill; it's their bill. If anything, that member should be standing up and talking about how good the bill is. He shouldn't be attacking the Liberal Party. He attacked us. I listened to the leader of the PDA attack the leader of the Liberal Party, and everybody forgot to really talk about the bill.
The bill is nothing but a rent control bill. It is interesting to note that this minister is not willing to listen to all the people that I am sure have written her letters about why there is no need for this kind of legislation. It shouldn't surprise any of us in this House that that minister would do that. She is the past Minister of Social Services who refused to admit that there was any fraud within the Social Services ministry. She refused to admit that there was any administrative error. In fact, she was in charge of that ministry when it increased its budget by somewhere around 40 percent.
It's no wonder that that minister does not listen to what is happening in British Columbia. People are writing us letters about how poor a piece of legislation this is. Besides my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon.... The member from the PDA -- and I do have to say that he did speak about the bill and he agreed with it -- agrees with rent controls. I don't agree with rent controls. I think rent controls are absolutely ridiculous. It's an intrusion by government -- and I don't care what government -- into the private lives of individuals. The members who have spoken about the bill talked about how there were only a few unscrupulous tenants. There are ways to control those people.
An Hon. Member: Landlords.
R. Neufeld: Landlords; I'm sorry. There are tenants also. It works both ways.
They talk about all the phone calls they get in their office and all the letters. I don't get a lot of letters in my office about rent. I don't get people coming in daily talking to me about problems with rent. I can tell you that in the communities I represent we have a tremendous number of renters. We have a tremendous number of people who come in, live for a while, work and then go away again -- and not all at high-paying jobs. For the life of me, I can't understand why any government would want to intrude on a private enterprise system that's worked well for the last number of years and bring in regulations that are just a form of rent control that is controlled by cabinet. Cabinet sets what the people should have for rent increases. I think the private market should determine rent increases.
An Hon. Member: Taxi licences too?
R. Neufeld: The member from down the way talks about taxi licences. My goodness, if we have ever heard about taxi licences, we've heard about taxi licences this last while. They have got their noses in the trough and are helping their friends, and this member has nerve enough to catcall me about taxi licences. My goodness, we're talking about rent controls, not about Kimber Cabs.
[5:45]
I see absolutely no reason to have any kind of legislation that deals with rent controls. I have a letter here from a lady who manages some apartment buildings in Fort St. John. It's a fairly lengthy letter; I'm not going to read all of it, but I'm going to read part of it. In her letter to me, she writes that she
[ Page 11795 ]
read through Bill 50. I can say that she said she doesn't have much trouble with some of it, but she does with a lot of it because she does not believe in rent controls. I want to read about people who own rental units in British Columbia and about how disinvestment starts when you bring in rent controls, because people will not invest money when all of a sudden they find out that some government -- who knows which government it's going to be -- will control what return they get on their investment. She writes:
"It is difficult to comprehend the reasoning that would have prompted such changes to the existing Residential Tenancy Act. After reviewing the proposed changes, I can foresee a myriad of complex problems and costs that must be borne by the landlords, as the proposed changes would prohibit making recovery of these costs impossible. Not only does expense enter into this problem, but common sense, safety and the very basis of private enterprise is...questioned. While it is true that a minority of tenants have problems with unscrupulous landlords or owners, the majority of tenants enjoy quiet, clean, spacious and comfortable accommodations. The changing of legislation to reflect a very minute portion of the rental population's problems is ludicrous when one considers the costs of implementing and administering the changes, the potential loss for investment income, which is a large portion of our recent growth provincewide, the potential for landlord abuse, and the very serious long-range effects of disinvestment. Disinvestment is what happens when private enterprise, such as apartment owners who are in the business of renting apartments, no longer has a financial incentive to remain in the business and simply lets property default on mortgage payments, enter a foreclosure action....
"There is substantial protection already in place for the tenants who are being taken advantage of or abused. There is the current act and arbitrators.... There are provincial health guidelines; there are municipal bylaws pertaining to condition; the mortgage companies have condition clauses in their mortgage documents; there are fire and building inspectors who have access to provincial law and regulations; there are many officials who already have the power and ability to force negligent landlords to clean up deficiencies."
Obviously this person thinks there are already enough controls in the system to take care of any unscrupulous landlords. I probably have to admit that it's not going to take care of all of them, because you're always going to have a few. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you're going to have a few even with this. All you have is more intrusion into the private lives of people who want to invest money in British Columbia and make it grow. This government just tries to find way after way after way to drive that investment out of British Columbia.
I want to just read a little bit more. This lady has been in Fort St. John for quite a while and went through a very difficult period where the reverse happened: the owner of the apartment building was subsidizing it tremendously so they could keep it. I want to read again:
"What has not been given any consideration is our economy over the past 14 years in the northern part of our province." And I can understand why this government wouldn't understand the northern part of the province. They don't understand any other part of it for any other reason -- anything north of Hope. I can quite understand why they wouldn't understand anything about Fort St. John or the Peace River country.
"For a number of years, specifically from 1983 to 1989, any owners who remained in the apartment or townhouse rental business were faced with subsidizing their investments. Rent rates on the average during this period were extremely low. I can cite, with proof, one-bedroom units renting for $200 per month and two-bedroom units at $250 per month. In the meantime, operating costs increased dramatically over the same period of time. Our property taxes" -- in Fort St. John -- "are much higher than comparable communities...."
She said that the cost of utilities had also increased dramatically. So some of these people who have lived through a very difficult time and have subsidized their units are not going to be able to bring their rents up high enough to get a decent return on their investment, and that's part of the problem.
But if there's one thing that bothers me about any legislation that comes into this House, it's when we start bringing in more regulations and more types of legislation that interfere in the private enterprise system and in people's lives. It just makes it that much more difficult, and it's that much more expensive. This is another good indication of what can happen. We'll have a lot more difficulties. We'll just have more arbitrators appointed. I don't know how everyone will be appointed or hired. It's pretty hard to tell how this government is going to go about doing that, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what will happen. There must be a couple of NDP members left who don't have a job under this government, so I'm sure they'll get some employment this way. I can only say that I totally oppose Bill 50 and will be voting against it.
R. Chisholm: I have some good thoughts about Bill 50, and I have some thoughts that aren't quite so happy. For instance, I wonder about what the other member was talking about -- lack of investment in this industry. I believe there is a very great possibility that there will be less investment in the rental market. I believe we are going to see less and less, which is going to mean a decrease in housing. That is going to bring about more pressure on government to come up with money to get low-income rental housing and this type of thing.
The NDP is marketing this bill as a fairness bill in the rental housing market. The statement is that the bill does not reintroduce rent controls, but I believe it does. My problem here is that I see the good points where this bill is taking care of the person who is renting, I see where they've gone the extra mile to help out the renter, but I don't see the balance between the person renting the place and the person renting it out. I don't see where they are taking the landlord into account, ensuring that his rights are taken care of. With this type of bill, I'm afraid it's only going to lead to less investment in this province. Like I said, that in turn will put more pressure onto the government to come up with alternative sources for people to live. As we all well know, with the debt we're carrying at this point in time, we can't come up with a lot more money to get more low-cost rental housing and assistance. The federal government is in exactly the same position, so money is not going to be coming from that direction.
We need people to invest in this market. We need people to develop properties for renting. The only thing I have to say is: where is the fairness to the owner? Where is the fairness to the person who is going to spend the money in rent? There are good landlords and good tenants, just as there are bad landlords and bad tenants. We have to take care of both, not just one side. We can't just take care of the person who is renting; we must have a balance. We must take care of the person who owns the property and is willing to take the chance and invest. Otherwise we bring more pressure onto the government -- and that's the people of British Columbia -- and we can ill afford to develop more.
The Speaker: The minister closes debate.
[ Page 11796 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I was actually going to get up and move the appropriate motion, but I can't pass up the opportunity to close debate. So not seeing any further speakers, I will do that.
I've taken extensive notes, and while a number of legitimate questions were asked, I'll look forward to committee stage of the bill to answer those questions. In general terms on the principle of the bill, I want to take the opportunity to clarify some perspectives of some of the previous speakers.
Let me first assure the House that when the model that has defined this legislation was first tabled with the public in December of '93, it launched us into a fairly comprehensive consultation process in this province. It gave us anopportunity to talk to landlord and tenant organizations and individual landlords and individual tenants, as well as a number of our partners in the housing community generally -- developers and other interested partners. That consultation is the culmination of the bill you see before us today.
On the debate in the House, I want to remark not only on my shock at the position the Liberal opposition has taken -- given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is so clearly on the public record, and indeed lobbied, for exactly this approach to providing fairness to renters in the rental market -- but that predominately over and over again, the debate among the Liberal opposition and others seemed to focus on the supply side.
I want to take the opportunity to state again, as was stated by other members on the government side, that this government takes seriously the development of a housing policy for British Columbia. While the Liberal federal government has abandoned its responsibility for a national housing strategy, this government has not. In the next month this government will make a number of significant announcements that will affect the supply side. This piece of legislation is simply consumer protection legislation that provides some balance and fairness in the marketplace.
The Liberal opposition spoke of investors and the discouragement of investment in the rental housing market. When we look at the studies of what has happened in the last ten years, it's very clear that since the rentalsman was abolished in this province there has been a diminishment of investment in rental housing stock. During the rentalsman's term in office there was far more investment in rental housing than we have seen since that time. In reality, the things that have affected investment in the rental housing market have been the increasing cost of land and changes to the personal income tax. That was a federal government initiative in the early 1980s -- a change that disallowed investment by professionals such as doctors and lawyers in the rental housing market. Through the closing of that loophole we saw a loss in investment in rental housing stock overall. So the government is aware. We have conducted an analysis of the marketplace, and our announcements in the next short while will continue to invest in communities, particularly in the supply side.
[6:00]
I want to address a couple of other points. Not only have we got the hottest housing market and the tightest and lowest vacancy rates across Canada, but in British Columbia -- and I'll restate my opening comments -- our rents are approximately 11 percent higher than anywhere else in Canada. While individuals like the previous rentalsman, Barrie Clark, oppose this model, even Mr. Clark readily admits that this is not the legislation that he was responsible for in the early eighties. Given the opportunity to understand the legislation and its ability to ensure the health of the businesses in the rental housing market, I'm sure that he will go the next step and agree that this is consumer protection and that it supports good business practices and good businesses. It's in the interest of this government to ensure that it is a healthy marketplace for business and a fair and balanced place for renters.
The amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, which are before the House, bring about that balance. I would agree that the Residential Tenancy Act needs a considerable amount of work to ensure that it is in plain language, so that it is easily readable by both landlords and tenants. During the consultation process, I was struck by the number of landlords who did not know about the significant tool they had at their disposal, with the residential tenancy branch, to govern their business and their relationship with tenants. Very clearly, this is not about rent controls; we rejected rent controls. That is an expensive system that does not, in our view, serve landlords or tenants. The model that the Opposition House Leader was calling for would actually put caps in place. So the opposition was asking for a far more intrusive model than the fairness model we have decided upon.
In closing, I want to reiterate that this government believes that the majority of landlord-tenant relationships in this province are good; that the changes will bring about an opportunity, for the first time in ten years, for the residential tenancy branch to actively support those good relationships by providing information and support to both landlords and tenants and, at the same time, a fair process for tenants and landlords who are dealing with abusive situations to have those situations resolved.
I move second reading.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 34 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
|
Hammell |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
Barlee |
|
Blencoe |
Lovick |
Pullinger |
|
Janssen |
Randall |
Beattie |
|
Farnworth |
Doyle |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Sawicki |
Jackson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
| Boone | ||
|
NAYS -- 14 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Serwa |
|
Hanson |
Gingell |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Dalton |
Chisholm |
Tanner |
|
Anderson |
M. de Jong |
Symons |
|
Neufeld |
|
H. De Jong |
Bill 50, Residential Tenancy 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the House Leader, I remind hon. members that, if you're interested, the Speaker
[ Page 11797 ]
has requested that you attend the reception for the Canadian parliamentary librarians in the library rotunda between now and 7 o'clock.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move the House, at its rising, recess until 6:45 this evening.
C. Serwa: Point of order, if I may interject. I think having the parliamentary librarians from across Canada here for the first time is a very remarkable event. I'm very proud of that. It seems to me that we should recess until at least 7 p.m. to allow all of us a chance to partake in the meeting with them.
The Speaker: Is that agreed, hon. House Leader?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.
The House resumed at 7:01 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. Smallwood: This evening I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Education estimates. In the House, I call second reading of Bill 31.
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Bill 31 is a significant piece of housing legislation as well as an important component of my made-in-B.C. housing policy to increase the supply of affordable and special needs housing throughout the province. The federal government's withdrawal from new social housing commitments has meant new thinking and new partnerships. Bill 31 reflects this vision. This legislation is third in a series of amendments to the Municipal Act to further empower our local government partners to address their housing needs. Bill 31 follows on the heels of Bill 57, proclaimed last summer, and Bill 20, which came into effect in the autumn of '92. Bill 31 continues this government's leadership role in promoting effective partnerships between local government, community housing interests and the housing industry. This legislation provides additional tools for local government to meet our mutual goal of providing safe and affordable housing to all British Columbians.
During the consultation process undertaken by the Provincial Commission on Housing Options in the fall of 1992, many municipal representatives shared their concerns about their ability to respond to affordable housing needs in their communities. They also shared frustration over their inability to enforce proper standards of maintenance for rental buildings in their jurisdictions. It was clear that municipalities wanted to increase the supply of affordable housing in their communities and ensure that homes of tenants were kept at a proper standard of maintenance.
Bill 31 achieves these objectives. The amendments will clarify the authority of municipal governments to lease and sell land below market value to organizations that will use the land for community purposes without private profit to themselves. This means that municipalities will be able to provide land to non-profit housing associations at below market value to build affordable housing. Other types of non-profit organizations will benefit from these amendments as well. The provision will be broad enough to provide for the selling or leasing of land at below market value to community-minded organizations for child care services, senior activity centres and meeting and work spaces.
The amendment will also provide the authority to municipal governments to develop and pass standards-of-maintenance bylaws for rental buildings in their jurisdictions. These standards of maintenance will help them deal with buildings which pose a hazard to the residents. For example, municipalities will now be able to require that faulty and potentially dangerous wiring be repaired, broken furnaces be replaced and fire exits be accessible to all tenants. In short, municipal governments can now ensure that rental buildings meet the maintenance standards necessary for people to live with dignity and respect.
This legislative amendment is not unique. Other provinces, including Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provide for municipal authorities to sell or lease land to non-profit groups. British Columbia is one of the last provinces to grant municipalities the authority to pass standards-of-maintenance bylaws.
In summary, Bill 31 strengthens the authority of local government to address the housing needs of their area. It will help them meet these needs through a sale or lease of land to non-profit organizations. It will help them improve the lives of tenants in their jurisdiction by developing and enforcing standards-of-maintenance bylaws for rental buildings. This bill builds on Municipal Act amendments aimed at housing introduced in the last two sessions. This bill provides an important framework for building an effective partnership among local governments in the province on affordable housing. It is an important cornerstone of our made-in-B.C. housing policy. With that, I look forward to the comments of other members.
C. Tanner: It's not often that we get a bill of this brevity in the House. Consequently, when we're discussing the bill, we're almost discussing it clause by clause, because there are only a couple of clauses in it. However, I haven't really got a great deal to say as far as what the minister's concerns are. It's a logical step in the process of what she wants to do. The fact that Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have got this legislation in place, or some parts of it, probably gives it some credibility.
I have two minor points which I think will need clarification. Maybe the minister could give us some idea as to how she defines a non-profit corporation. It isn't defined here, and it isn't defined in the original act, which leads to the possibility that it could be abused by the municipalities. I understand the municipalities have asked for this; in that respect, it's a necessary piece of legislation. The other question I would ask is: what happens if somebody objects when they give notice? There's no recourse in either the old bill or this amended bill if someone does object to the public notice.
Finally, when we get to the details of the bill in the next step, perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not non-incorporated organizations, such as clubs, locals or tribal councils, are included in this bill, because it doesn't say so right now.
We won't be opposing this bill; we'll be looking forward to it.
G. Wilson: Having come out of municipal levels of government to the Legislative Assembly, I am well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by members of various councils with respect to the acquisition of property that is currently in the public trust for the purpose of
[ Page 11798 ]
non-profit use, particularly in some urban centres where that use would be required for residential properties. In principle, there is a question that needs to be addressed here, because this deals with the disposal of real property for non-profit uses. In that disposal, it says that the municipality can sell or lease a property to a non-profit corporation for less than market value. We are opposed to that, because we do not believe, as a matter of principle, that any level of government should be charged with the sale of public assets at less than market value. If this act had said "for long-term lease," "for lease agreement," or "for lease opportunities under the Land Title Act," where a covenant could be placed against such leases in terms of preferred or prescribed uses or uses that might be at variance with land use bylaws, then we would have said it was fair enough. We understand that that could meet the needs and concerns that municipalities have for non-profit corporations -- or in some instances, societies -- that want to acquire land in order to construct housing, especially low-income housing and often co-op housing, for residents in the corporation. I don't believe that we should be approving a bill that allows a level of government to dispose of the public asset for less than its market value. Therefore, in principle, we are going to speak against this bill.
Keep in mind that under this Municipal Amendment Act, which is not a very long act.... We've done as much cross-referencing work as we can with respect to it. We understand that there are many ways in which a municipality already is empowered to discharge its authority over land. Usually, when municipalities discharge their responsibilities, they undertake to have an assessment of the value of that land prior to disposal, so they can assure the taxpayers in that region, those who elect council, that their interests are being properly served.
I can't help but draw a parallel with the Vancouver Land Corp. and the city of Vancouver. In this instance, there was land provided for VLC, which is perhaps not a non-profit organization, although it quite easily could be. Being a non-profit corporation does not preclude providing a pecuniary interest to board members by virtue of income. I've seen nothing in any act that suggests non-profit corporations can't have people on the board receive money. Furthermore, we would like to have a declaration with respect to share values in terms of equity that may be provided for a pecuniary return.
But in that instance, the people of Vancouver clearly were not well served. Land was provided with no assessment done. A figure was put on that property with an expectation of financial gain directly to the city, as a result of an agreement signed with respect to the amount of housing to be constructed, the value of that housing and the return that was going to come out of that housing, to offset the amount of property put into the original agreement. They found that it didn't happen; it did not come about. Yet there was clearly pecuniary gain by those who were the principals of that organization.
The people of Vancouver lost. They lost because the number of housing units didn't materialize; they lost because the land was alienated for that purpose. Some construction took place, but not all of it. Some of it is going to come back to the city. But the city has clearly not received back the amount of money that it should have under that agreement -- not even close to it.
Lastly, we find that the provincial government now -- i.e., the taxpayers of the province -- is still obligated to pay that corporation for an offset to the tune of several millions of dollars because of the agreement on mortgage interest rates.
An. Hon. Member: Shameful.
G. Wilson: It is truly shameful. It is a classic ripoff put together by the former mayor of Vancouver's cronies and buddies in the real estate industry.
C. Tanner: Point of order. We're speaking to the principle of a bill; the member is speaking about an item for a non-profit organization, and that's not what this bill addresses.
The Speaker: The point is well taken. Would the member please address the principle of the bill. Please proceed.
G. Wilson: I raise that by way of example, because in the definition of a non-profit corporation, there is nothing to preclude a similar kind of agreement being made -- notwithstanding, as I've already pointed out, that while direct profit is something that can be measured, indirect profit by virtue of a person's share or interest in a co-op, or their potential with respect to a position they may hold as a director of such a corporation, may provide for a pecuniary interest.
It's interesting that the language of the bill doesn't talk about private profit; it talks about private gain. Therein lies the second, perhaps semantic problem here, but I think it's an important one for us to consider. Whenever government or anybody in government is prepared to support the principle of a non-profit corporation coming forward and purchasing a public asset at less than market value, and whenever government is disposing of land at less than market value, there's a clear problem. We as elected members are entrusted to look after the public trust, first and foremost; we are not elected to dispose of the public trust in any way -- and certainly not below what would be market value.
[7:15]
I raise the VLC, the Vancouver Land Corp., because it clearly demonstrates the kind of agreement that can be entered into. In this case, it was with a for-profit corporation, although it was chartered to set up non-profit housing. If you look at its original charter, that's what it was for. It certainly did not have as its stated goal to look after the interests of those who were involved in it. But if you look at that example, I think we have to be very fearful of what is intended here.
The second question is: why does the Municipal Amendment Act, 1994, come forward under the hon. Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services? Why would this amendment to the Municipal Act not come forward under the Minister of Municipal Affairs?
R. Neufeld: It's called spreading the work around.
G. Wilson: The member for Peace River North suggests that it's called spreading the work around. In fact, it is, the way the division in the ministries is there. This is intended to allow municipalities to set up land for non-profit housing corporations to put in place co-op housing programs. We're not opposed to that concept.
In debate on the last bill, I advocated that a rent-to-own program be set up by the private sector, with a government bond issue that would allow us an opportunity to have private financing for just such a program. I think that idea could be facilitated with the use of lands that are currently Crown lands or under municipal jurisdiction. The key to its success is to make sure that the marketability, and the advisability of proceeding on that, is measured only by the
[ Page 11799 ]
value of that property within the free market system and not as a direct subsidy by either the municipal or provincial government. That's when we run into problems with escalating and spiralling costs, that's when we put in place an unrealistic proposition for the construction of housing in the first place, and that's where we don't accurately measure whether or not the programs we're putting forward have merit in terms of the economics of what we're attempting to do.
We recognize that the intent of this bill is perhaps honourable, and we understand that a number of governments and municipal agencies have requested this. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the comments of the official opposition, the Alliance members are opposed in principle to government permitting another level of government to sell a public asset for less than its true value. We think that the government ought to refrain from doing that kind of thing, in principle. If there's going to be a use of Crown land or municipal properties, it should be done by way of a long-term lease, so that the public assets remain in the public trust rather than being funnelled off to people who could possibly acquire the land at less than market value and do with it whatever they would like, rather than what the public might find is in their interest in the long term.
L. Hanson: I find this government's process of introducing legislation very interesting. Very few bills come forward that you can support in their entirety, because there is always a little part of it that isn't quite as supportable. So you're caught between two different attitudes about the bill. I have to say, on balance, that I would oppose this act simply because of the first section.
A number of years ago, the responsibility of social programs within communities was taken away from municipalities. At one time municipalities had to partially fund and administer the minister's former ministry, Social Services. It was changed with the intention -- and, I think, reasonable intention -- that governments at the local level are there to provide local services and that the responsibility for social programs rests with the senior government, which is the provincial government. Now we see a section of this bill that would allow municipalities to give land away at less than market value for social housing purposes.
I suppose that in itself has some merit. But it is my contention that that responsibility lies with the provincial government, not with the municipality. If the municipality wishes to go out and create a social housing project within the community, they should be required, as they are in the case of borrowing bylaws, to submit to the municipal residents a questionnaire or referendum on whether or not they wish to do this. There certainly are tax implications in this sort of legislation as far as municipal taxation is concerned.
If we are saying that municipal and regional governments have a responsibility for social programs, why don't we come out and say that? I've heard from this government many times that the senior government in Ottawa is downloading some of their responsibilities onto the provincial government. While this may be permissive, there's no question that it is going to put pressure on municipalities, if they have land in their land bank, to donate that land for little or nothing for a social housing project. It is my contention that that is a responsibility of the more senior government -- the provincial government. We will debate that as we get into committee stage, but it's a principle that is wrong here, Mr. Speaker. It's the principle of local governments being responsible for social programs that are really the responsibility of the federal government. There have been initiatives in the past, in the Municipal Act, to allow certain things to happen -- bonus zoning and things like that -- for the creation of social housing. That, generally speaking, is not a cost to the municipal taxpayer, who, by the way, is also the payer of the social programs put in place at the provincial level. That, to me, is the wrong approach to it. I know what the minister is trying to do and I understand, but that is wrong, because it is not a municipal responsibility; it is a provincial government responsibility, supposedly shared by the federal government through revenue-sharing or transfer payments. I have to oppose the bill for that simple reason.
The other part of the bill, which gives the municipality the authority to regulate the maintenance of rental accommodation, is not an unreasonable approach to it, providing the municipalities take a reasonable approach to it. As has been demonstrated in the one municipality that has it now, it hasn't been too badly abused. That part of the bill is not too difficult to support. But on balance, because of the change I believe this bill brings about as far as philosophy is concerned, I have to oppose the bill.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak against Bill 31 in second reading. One thing that struck me about Bill 31, in looking at it, is that we've had a number of changes to the Land Title Act in the last year or so.
We know that in this session there will be the most dramatic changes to property rights in this province that this province has seen in decades. That doesn't occur just under Bill 31; it occurs under Bill 21 and Bill 28. When you take the Land Title Amendment Act being introduced this year and cross-reference it with Bill 21, which is the heritage act, there is to the Alliance a disturbing trend. There can be an erosion of private property rights to the extent that, if we take the Land Title Amendment Act, any person designated by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks can place a covenant on private property.
As we read Bill 31 in front of us, the ability to place that covenant is done in a very nebulous way, without definition. For example, how is a non-profit corporation defined for the purposes of this act? We can't find any definition of a non-profit corporation for the purposes of this act. Actually it could be a Crown corporation, a society, a designated person -- if that person constitutes herself or himself as a corporation -- a first nations government or a committee. And that, for the purpose of this act, could constitute a non-profit corporation.
When we start to talk about "less than market value if private gain is absent" that's not defined either. What does private gain mean? Does that mean that the collective gains in terms of real property rights but the individual making the application doesn't gain? We don't understand why the wording has been chosen the way it has.
We note that in Bill 31 there's a specific reference to section 215 of the Land Title Act. That specific section is being amended in another bill -- and it's being dramatically amended -- in a way that cross-references to the heritage act. In this way, by the end of this session there will be a dramatic and almost revolutionary change in how we define private property rights. On the one hand, we believe private property rights should be almost sacrosanct -- other than covenants placed for the benefit of the collective, where those private property rights or an alteration of the private property would have a downstream or negative impact or some kind of long-term, collective impact on the people on adjacent properties. Other than that, when someone
[ Page 11800 ]
purchases a property and it's fee simple.... Prior to this session there were certain expectations that, after this session, will no longer apply. After this session of this Legislature, with the Land Title Amendment Act, the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act and the Municipal Amendment Act, there will be dramatic changes.
The most disturbing part of the Municipal Amendment Act is the sale of public lands. What I think is interesting is that when we talk about a non-profit corporation, we could assume that that might be a society. Many people assume that because a body is constituted as a society, it then falls under the Society Act and is therefore subject to all the regulations, rules and legislation of the Society Act.
I can think of half a dozen examples where that is not followed up on, notwithstanding that a body is constituted under the Society Act and notwithstanding a violation and a ruling by the registrar of societies of a violation of the Society Act -- which means lack of accountability. Although we have a Society Act which, if it were enforced.... I'm not just talking about enforced through litigation but enforced through the body by which it is legislated -- the registrar of societies. If we are to take some comfort in the fact that a non-profit corporation will be governed by the Society Act and that therefore a violation of the Society Act will be dealt with by the registrar, then we might feel it's okay for non-profit corporations to somehow receive title to public property -- title that is being removed from the public domain and put in the hands of that non-profit corporation because it's governed by the Society Act.
[7:30]
The Society Act is hardly being enforced. We know of instances when this government introduced legislation retroactively. When litigation action is being taken under the Society Act -- the only avenue that is really left, because the registrar and the Minister of Finance don't seem willing to call investigations under that act -- the government introduces a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to retroactively change the Society Act so that the litigation will fail. That's hardly accountability. So it's a non-profit corporation -- big deal.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Let me think. What are the non-profit corporations in the news these days? Maybe the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Would that society be eligible? I believe it would be.
An Hon. Member: Well, of course.
J. Tyabji: It would be. That would be a non-profit corporation which would potentially be picking up property, provided it's not for private gain. And who determines what private gain is, in absence of a definition? Is it the minister? We can see that under this government, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society might become a non-profit corporation for the purposes of this act. Then -- heaven help us if the Liberals get into government -- maybe the Vancouver Land Corp. will constitute itself as a society, to be even less accountable than it is now. Then that becomes a society for the purposes of this act.
Either way, this squeezes in on the public. The people who are going to be left behind are the people who own the land -- the public. Where does the public have an interest in this? Where does the public have an interest in the sale of the public's land?
When we have non-profit corporations that aren't being taken to task under the Society Act and we have for-profit corporations or, arguably, a Crown corporation which could be deemed for the purposes of this act, or an aboriginal government or an individual.... Or, if we cross-reference it to the Land Title Amendment Act, we now know that in terms of the covenants, it could be any person designated by the minister. We know that section 215 of the Land Title Act now applies through this bill. For the purposes of this section, for the purposes of the amendment -- the disposal of real property for non-profit use -- we know that section 215 of the Land Title Act applies and, at that point, complete discretion on the part of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. That is a big concern.
Whenever we stand up in this assembly, obviously we should be safeguarding the interests of the public. If the intent of this bill is to allow for a lease or for some use of public land -- because a non-profit society or group or body of individuals would choose to have access to the property so that they could then pursue an activity that's in the interests of the people of their community -- then that's what it should say. There should be a definition for a non-profit corporation, and we would prefer it to say "a non-profit society." We would prefer it to be specific and say "a body as constituted under the Society Act." If it said that, then we would have a better idea about where the minister is coming from. It doesn't say "a body that is working for the benefit of the community." In terms of profit or non-profit, all it specifically says is "private gain." If the minister is intending to allow for some means through which a group working on behalf of the community can access property at less than market value, it should be done through a lease. It should be done through an accountable process, and it should be done with some comfort on the part of the public that there will be safeguards for the public land.
There should be no sale of public land below market value. There is no justification for that. If we want to talk about a rent-to-own program -- because we are dealing with the Minister of Housing now -- then there should be a specific housing strategy laid out. If there were a specific housing strategy laid out, we would probably be dealing more with Crown lands, because it would be a provincial strategy rather than municipal lands or something under the Municipal Act.
Not only is this nebulous wording, but when we start to cross-reference this bill with other bills before the House and see the trend away from individual rights on a person's property that is originally owned in fee simple, we start to become alarmed. We become extremely alarmed when we see public land being disposed of -- to use the words of the language -- for non-profit uses when there is no stipulation with regard to the intent. It says "private gain." It would be better if it said "for the purpose of the public good," or had some way of wording it so we understand what the minister is referring to.
In closing, I would like to say in opposition to this, notwithstanding this minister's intent and that this minister might be saying, "I don't want you to take the Municipal Act or Bill 31 and cross-reference it to the other bills," once this becomes law, the way it is worded will allow an open door for the other bills. There will be a lot of consequential impacts on all the municipalities in the province. It's no wonder that we heard the Liberals saying that some municipalities wanted this. Of course the municipalities would want to have the ability to do this; it gives them a lot of power. The bottom line is: what does the public want? Is the public crying out and saying to please dispose of our public land to non-accountable, non-profit corporations as long as they don't want private gain? I haven't heard that. I
[ Page 11801 ]
have heard calls for a housing strategy, which this minister deals with, and I have heard a lot of calls for greater accountability for societies and private corporations that benefit from the public trough -- which there isn't right now, especially through this Minister of Housing. If we want to deal with private corporations like the Vancouver Land Corp., let's deal with that. When we talk about an alleged for-profit company getting public land disposed of for the purpose of private gain, that's a good example. Yet there has been no accountability from this government on that transaction.
I am opposed to this. Many of these comments will come up again with greater specifics in the Land Title Amendment Act. Notwithstanding this minister's intention, this does allow for a dangerous precedent to be set, and I look forward to committee stage.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the minister, whose remarks will close debate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's regrettable that some of the members who joined us late did not have the opportunity to hear the introductory comments. Many of the questions would have been clarified in that process. I look forward to the debate during committee stage and to answering many of the specific questions that have been raised.
I wish to reiterate that this is an essential component with respect to the federal government's withdrawal and this government's commitment to developing a housing strategy. Not only municipalities but people throughout British Columbia recognize the need to be part of the solution in providing housing for every citizen in this province. The opportunity for municipalities to work with their partners, not only in housing through the development industry and the homebuilding industry but in ensuring that the assets they are responsible for are used for the best ends of the community, is an opportunity that they themselves embrace.
I want to make the point that when we are developing a housing strategy in this day and age, no one level of government can provide the solution. With the loss of two-thirds of the funding for non-profit housing, it is more crucial than ever that all assets be brought to bear to address this problem. Municipalities and the province are able to underwrite some costs to reduce the costs of housing for people who cannot participate in the marketplace. It becomes obvious that we must all put our assets on the community table in trying to embrace those solutions. I look forward to committee debate and move second reading.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 39 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Smallwood |
Barlee |
Blencoe |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Randall |
|
Beattie |
Farnworth |
Doyle |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Kasper |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Stephens |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Chisholm |
Symons |
|
M. de Jong |
Anderson |
Tanner |
|
NAYS -- 7 | ||
|
Hanson |
Serwa |
Wilson |
|
Tyabji |
H. De Jong |
Neufeld |
| Fox | ||
Bill 31, Municipal 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.
[7:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I call second reading of Bill 47.
HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood: Bill 47 contains several minor changes to the province's consumer protection legislation. Although these changes may appear small, they will be of significant benefit to consumers in individual cases.
Section 1 of Bill 47 amends the disclosure obligations imposed on credit-reporting agencies under the Credit Reporting Act. This amendment, together with requirements passed last session in Bill 21, means that credit-reporting agencies must give potential creditors the explanatory statements provided by businesses and consumers, along with the credit information they supply.
Sections 2 and 3 of Bill 47 amend provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. The existing prohibition that regulates the alteration of motor vehicle odometers is being expanded to regulate the disconnection or complete replacement of odometers. As well, the offence provision of the Motor Dealer Act is being expanded to include the offence of violating a regulation made under the act.
Section 4 of Bill 47 repeals British Columbia's Trading Stamp Act. The Trading Stamp Act is an outdated statute, which has its origin in legislation that was first enacted in 1900. The purpose of the present Trading Stamp Act is to set the minimum value of a trading stamp at 10 cents and to allow a court to prohibit the trading of stamps in smaller denominations. The B.C. Law Reform Commission recommended that the Trading Stamp Act either should be updated to clarify its application to the kinds of customer loyalty schemes in use today, or should be repealed.
Section 5 of Bill 47 amends the Travel Agents Act. With this amendment, the cost arising from meetings of the Travel Assurance Board will now be borne by the travel assurance fund.
T. Perry: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
T. Perry: The House has the honour to be joined in the gallery today by at least one Victorian: the information and privacy commissioner, Mr. David Flaherty, who I suspect is learning that freedom of information sometimes has its price in potential brain damage from listening to these debates, and that privacy may be the order of the day as he retreats to his own domicile to escape these debates later this evening. But while he's here, I bid members to please make this independent officer of the Legislature welcome.
J. Dalton: I hope the commissioner is prepared for a lengthy debate on this bill. I'm sure the House will be happy that I'll just make a couple of brief comments.
[ Page 11802 ]
Certainly the opposition has no problem with the content of this extensive bill. In particular, we welcome some amendments to the Motor Dealer Act, dealing with odometers, which, of course, as all members will have heard or experienced, do cause problems.
As well, I think there's some good news in this bill. It's unusual for this government to repeal something and not replace it. But certainly the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission about the Trading Stamp Act is well taken, and we're happy that this government has not sought in any way to tamper with a 95-year-old bill but instead is just getting rid of it. Those are the words from the opposition.
G. Wilson: All of the Alliance's comments will be picked up in committee stage. Clearly this is an omnibus bill that does need some clarification of two of its clauses, but I don't think it warrants a lengthy second reading debate.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the minister, whose comments will close debate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would simply move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 47, Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services Statutes 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. J. Smallwood: The minister responsible for Bill 35 has asked that we adjourn the House for five minutes while he's actually taking an opportunity to place his daughter up in the gallery. He's doing double duty for the House today: both caring for his young daughter and ensuring second reading of Bill 35.
Deputy Speaker: Of course, we have a choice. We could listen to the minister talk for five minutes, or we could simply recess for five minutes. I'm assuming we're all amenable and agreeable to a recess.
The House recessed at 7:49 p.m.
The House resumed at 7:54 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 35.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. M. Sihota: Before I start, in the gallery witnessing this debate is my seven-year-old daughter Karina, who has been with me all evening. She doesn't get too many opportunities to witness debate. But I know that this legislation is actually one that we have talked about every day as we drive from home to school in my now methanol-powered vehicle. Prior to that, we drove in my electric-powered vehicle. When you drive vehicles that have alternative fuels, of course, your children ask why their father drives such vehicles, and that allows me to explain to her, as I will now to all members of the House, the reason for this legislation.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, the hon. member is wrong. It has nothing to do with my desire to slow down the pace at which I drive. But it does have everything to do with a commitment this government has made with regard to clean air. We as an administration strongly feel that British Columbia must lead the way in Canada with regard to environmental legislation, and that we must make sure that the environment ethic, which is so strong and is such a powerful component of our psychology as British Columbians, is reflected in legislation we introduce not only with regard to the environment but also with regard to environmental policy.
We on this side of the House are proud that this government has set the standard for Canada, for North America and, indeed, for the world, in a number of areas with regard to environmental leadership. Shortly after our election, we as a government introduced the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge regulations in North America. We placed the standard at 1.5 AOX per tonne. Industry -- and I'm going to come back to this with regard to automobiles -- said at the time that it could not be done because of scientific barriers and fiscal costs. We made it clear that unlike the previous administration, we were not about to waver or wobble with regard to our commitment to tough effluent discharge standards, and we gave industry time to clean up their act.
In January 1994, shortly after I was sworn in as Minister of Environment, it was a pleasure for me to congratulate the industry for not only achieving but exceeding the pulp mill effluent discharge guidelines that we had established. It demonstrated very clearly that when you lay out a firm plan of action before industry, tell them what the regulations are and make it clear that your conviction is as strong and resolute as it can be, they know full well that the game of lobbying -- the game of talking -- is not going to get them anywhere and that the government is serious about its intentions, and they comply.
We introduced the toughest standards in North America for the phase-out of CFCs. CFCs deplete our ozone layer, and when our ozone layer is depleted, it causes all sorts of potential health impacts. For example, in terms of ultraviolet rays, skin burns a lot more quickly than would otherwise be the case. It has the opportunity to impact on animals, wildlife, vegetation and plant life on earth. Consequently, the former Minister of Environment under our government brought in the toughest standards in North America with regard to the phase-out of CFCs. Again, we made it very clear that we as a government would lead the way with regard to environmental stewardship.
Our intentions did not stop at that point. I could go on to give you all sorts of other examples of steps we have taken. B.C.'s first forest practices code will change the way in which we manage our forests. There will be million-dollar fines and the establishment of tough standards with regard to forest activity in British Columbia. Those are all examples of environmental leadership.
Our initiatives with regard to protected areas include setting aside 12 percent of the representative ecosystems in British Columbia. As hon. members know, through the United Nations and the outstanding work of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, many nations made a commitment to try to achieve the 12 percent representative basis for ecosystems in their jurisdictions. British Columbia leads the way in Canada in establishing the protected areas strategy and in seeking to implement the 12 percent goal through the Commission on Resources and Environment.
Needless to say, there has been some difficulty in dealing with some of the issues in terms of practical implementation.
[ Page 11803 ]
But our commitment has not wavered. Indeed, I think the public fully believes that the 12 percent goal is laudable and should be achieved. Even those who have taken issue with the government's CORE process have supported the 12 percent objective. British Columbia leads the way in implementing that 12 percent goal. Quite frankly, when I talk to Ministers of Environment elsewhere in the nation, it becomes evident to me that people are looking at us and marvelling at the remarkable progress that we have made.
[8:00]
That, of course, is not the complete list of initiatives in terms of environmental stewardship that we've taken in leading the way in this country. The Waste Management Amendment Act now before the House is yet another example of this administration's desire to lead the way in Canada. This legislation enables this government to introduce the toughest regulations in Canada with regard to automobile tailpipe emissions and fuel standards. In other words, we on this side of the House say....
I note my wife has arrived in the gallery to pick up my daughter, and it's a pleasure. This is one of the few ways we get to communicate.
In any event, as I was saying....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's right, it allows people in the gallery to heckle me, let alone members here in the House.
As I was saying, our commitment is to lead the way in Canada. With regard to automobile emission standards, we have a significant smog problem in Vancouver, the lower mainland, the Fraser Valley and on southern Vancouver Island. In 1992 alone, 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were discharged from automobiles into the airshed in the greater Victoria area alone. We as a government firmly believe -- and I think it appropriate in terms of public policy -- that we should not allow Vancouver to go the way of Los Angeles, with its notorious and well-noted smog problems. We don't want to end up like Mexico City, where birds fall out of the sky because of the level of carbon monoxide in the air.
We can wait, allow growth and development to occur, and face the same kind of difficulties experienced in California or in Mexico. Or we can act now and take preventative action as a government to deal with air quality problems in this cherished province of ours. We can take leadership in terms of demonstrating the environmental ethic, which I said earlier on is so integral both to the environmental policies of this government and to the psychology and makeup of British Columbians.
By the introduction of this legislation, we make a conscious decision to mirror the tough automobile emission standards established in California. California has pioneered the way in North America through their standards. In California they have said that 2 percent of the vehicles on the road by the year 1998 must be zero-emission vehicles -- electric vehicles, for example, or hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles. They must be on the road in California by 1998, and the number goes up each year incrementally from that 2 percent. They have also mandated that a percentage of their vehicles be low-emission vehicles, so very little emission is coming out of those vehicles. In addition to that, they have established three categories of emissions and time frames for the automobile industry to meet those standards.
It's important, from our point of view, that California standards be recognized in this chamber in British Columbia. Because had it not been for the initiative and, I think, the foresight of people in California, it would not have been possible for us to introduce this legislation -- simply because California represents such a large component of the market share of automobiles in North America that once it brought in these standards, the automobile industry and the fuel industry had to listen.
On the fuel side of it, the provisions are relatively clear in California. They require the petroleum industry to clean the quality of their petroleum products, and if I can put it this way, they ultimately require that X percent of service stations -- X percent of Esso's, for lack of a better example -- must have propane, methanol, natural gas, an ability to recharge your electric vehicle and conventional fuels on site, so that a full range of fuels is available at gas stations instead of the conventional fuels that are available now. So California dealt both with the automobiles, in terms of emission standards, and with the fuels that go into them through the petroleum standards.
Other jurisdictions, such as 13 New England and eastern seaboard states, have now embraced California's regulations. That's a significant development, because it means that fully 50 percent of the market share in the United States now embraces the tough standards that California has established. When that occurs -- when that threshold is crossed -- that sends a powerful signal to the automobile and petroleum lobby in the United States concerning the intentions of governments in this regard. It makes it abundantly clear that we are about to move into a new era with emission and petroleum product standards.
No one in Canada, until the introduction of this legislation, had enabling legislation which allowed the same to occur in any province of Canada. I took occasion at the Go Green awards in November this year to indicate our interest in proceeding in this direction. I consulted with the automobile and petroleum industries in December and January. I asked staff to prepare this legislation that is now before the House. And I asked staff to continue -- as we will as a government -- to work with the automobile and petroleum industries in Canada to make sure that we can work in an amicable way to implement these regulations. By the way, I should also say I've talked to Washington State officials to encourage them to embrace the same kind of standards California has.
There is a good reason why we're doing this. First of all, it seems to me that there's good reason for government to move in this direction from a public policy point of view. There's the obvious reason that we as a jurisdiction do not want those vehicles which do not meet California standards to be dumped into British Columbia. We're not going to be seen as a second-rate province. We're not going to take those goods which can cause damage to the environment and have them dumped into B.C., while automobiles which have higher standards are sold and on the road in California. That's not acceptable.
Secondly, and more importantly, there are overwhelming health care reasons why we have to move in this direction. I'm sure those health reasons are part of the debate in California, but in my mind they are front and centre in terms of the public policy imperative here in British Columbia. If we move with the introduction of these regulations, over time we will prevent 33,000 hospital visits to emergency clinics in British Columbia because of respiratory problems. We will prevent 2,800 premature deaths in British Columbia. In the Fraser Valley alone, we will prevent $74 million in crop damage.
So there are both health and environmental imperatives as to why government must move on this prerogative. It's essential -- imperative -- that government proceed with
[ Page 11804 ]
these steps to clean the quality of our air and to tell the automobile and petroleum industries that times are changing. Public demands change. We don't want to see the vehicles dumped, and we see both health and environmental reasons as to why we should proceed with this public policy initiative.
There are other reasons. A few minutes ago I said California was mandating that 2 percent of the vehicles on the road had to be zero-emission vehicles. To achieve that, they're either going to have to make tremendous strides with technology regarding electric vehicles or there will have to be other technology that's going to show itself as being able to achieve the zero-emission standards.
British Columbia has been leading the way, from a technological point of view, in the development of the hydrogen fuel cell. Dr. Ballard of North Vancouver has been at the forefront of developing this new hydrogen fuel cell which powers vehicles. He has placed it in a B.C. Transit vehicle. In fact, in November I had occasion to showcase the B.C. Transit hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicle to the press here, and then I showed it to a class of kids in Esquimalt Secondary School that deals with automobile repairs. It's remarkable technology. It takes water, which is abundantly available to us, and combines it with hydrogen fuel cells and generates electricity that powers the bus. The only thing that comes out of the tailpipe is water. I've heard stories about someone taking a glass of water, putting it next to the tailpipe, letting it drip out and then drinking it, just to drive home the message to students and other observers that this is zero-emission technology.
We, as government in this province, realize that if California sticks to its 2 percent standard -- and it has recently been confirmed through the California Air Resources Board that they will -- there are tremendous economic development implications for British Columbia. The hydrogen fuel cell being developed in B.C. by Dr. Ballard has been placed in a B.C. Transit vehicle. It looks like a B.C. Transit bus, it rides like a B.C. Transit bus and it has all the power you would expect from a B.C. Transit bus. You wouldn't know the difference unless you were told that it was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell.
In January, I believe, the Minister of Employment and Investment and myself had a wonderful opportunity to see this technology and to make a commitment, in the millions of dollars, on the part of the province for the further development of it. The reason we did that was that I had the opportunity to showcase the Transit vehicle in California in January, as well, at Long Beach. It was remarkable to let the people in California -- who know that 2 percent of their vehicles on the road have to be zero-emission by 1998 -- see this Transit bus operate just like a transit bus going up and down the streets of Los Angeles. Right then and there, you could see that there was enormous economic development potential as we move to stage two: promoting this technology in California.
There will be tremendous economic development returns to the province with the development of the hydrogen-fuel-cell technology. Not only are there environmental health benefits, there are tremendous benefits in terms of economic development. The hydrogen fuel cell is just one example of the return that will come to British Columbia from the implementation of these kinds of regulations in California and, of course, our ability to now do the same in British Columbia. I should say that it's not our intention in British Columbia to duplicate the regulations in California, but rather to tailor-make the regulations here to deal with our unique environment and attributes, which in some ways are different than those in California. In that regard, we hope to work with industry in a constructive way to achieve our goals.
I talked a few minutes ago about industry. I have to tell you that there is no space in my mind to accept arguments that this is scientifically impossible or uneconomical. As I said earlier on, we heard those arguments with regard to the pulp mill discharge effluent regulations we brought in. As government, we learned from that lesson. You make it very clear to industry what your intentions are, you don't waver with regard to those intentions and then you place the onus on them to proceed with the development of appropriate technology. Let me say very clearly and publicly that this government is intent on proceeding with this legislation and bringing forward the appropriate regulations. We expect industry to comply with this legislation as much as we make the promise to work with them in a cooperative way. If there are areas of doubt, let me clarify any doubt in that regard.
I have to say that it has been heard before. In the 1970s the automobile industry in the United States said that it was going to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,500 to put in a catalytic converter; the cost was about 50 bucks. They resisted attempts to put in airbags and seatbelts for a variety of reasons; we have them now because governments had the will and said that these things had to be done.
[8:15]
On the fuel side, there are a number of opportunities for British Columbia. As I said at the outset of my comments, I'm now driving a methanol-fuelled vehicle to showcase that technology -- not zero emissions but very low emissions -- and show that it can work. Of course, here in Victoria we've opened British Columbia's third methanol station. These are what they call flexible fuels. You can put unleaded gas, as we know it, or methanol in the tank of a conventional vehicle -- in my case, a Ford Taurus. I want to thank Ford for actually making the vehicle available so we can showcase it. They've developed what they call a flexible-fuel vehicle; you can put either fuel in the engine. A vehicle can be powered on methanol, which is a relatively clean-burning fuel.
There are other opportunities in terms of natural gas. I know some hon. members have raised that, and I've had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the natural gas industry. I know that others have raised the opportunities that are presented by ethanol. Actually, I believe that the member for Chilliwack has had occasion to raise that issue, among others, in this House. That's an alternative that we're very interested in promoting.
There are fuel options out there, depending on what we do with the road tax and....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. members are wondering where the rest of my caucus is -- and so am I, for that matter. I know they've heard this speech before, and maybe that's why they're out. Maybe they're watching "Sports Desk" in preparation for tomorrow's hockey game. Either way, I'm sure they're usefully employed and engaged. In any event, it doesn't matter. It's important to put these matters on the record.
I want to say that these are the kinds of initiatives that I think are expected from a government that leads the way in Canada with regard to environmental stewardship. I had occasion to mention the initiatives we're bringing forward to the federal Minister of Environment, Ms. Copps, as well as to some of my colleagues in other provinces in Canada. I don't sense that there is an appetite elsewhere in the country to do this, and that's fair enough. But I also have to say that we will
[ Page 11805 ]
continue to put some pressure on other jurisdictions to do the same. As you see the New England states and California and us proceed with the development of these things, I think it's inevitable that it will occur in other provinces.
Above all, it's important that the federal government embrace these standards, and this is the point that I made to the Hon. Ms. Copps. I say that, because the federal government has jurisdiction with regard to minimal standards, and they can define the baseline. For all the reasons I've outlined already, it would be in the interest of the federal government, from a public policy point of view, to also show its willingness to embrace these standards. I appreciate that they're under some pressure from other provinces, particularly petroleum-producing provinces, not to proceed in that regard.
I have to tell you that from a pure public policy point of view, I think the Prime Minister of the country, Mr. Chretien, was wrong when he made a statement in Calgary a couple of weeks ago indicating that he would not support a carbon tax on fuel products emanating from Alberta. I think that the public is generally supportive of what we call green taxes or those kinds of environmental policy initiatives. He was quick in responding to concerns in Alberta without thinking through the environmental impacts. I don't want anybody to think that we're going to introduce that kind of legislation in British Columbia simply because we made a commitment not to increase taxes for the next three years. I am saying that on a national level, in terms of public policy initiatives which the federal government can easily deal with, Mr. Chretien was quick to rule out something that I think they should consider. Having made that decision, I would hope that the Environment minister and Deputy Prime Minister will not rule out their ability to change some of these standards at a national level, so as to make it clear that they are sensitive to environmental values.
I would be remiss in concluding my remarks on this legislation without making reference to one other area. That, of course, is the other initiatives that are contained within this legislation. The clean air amendment under the Waste Management Act also allows government to regulate with regard to wood stoves. The particulates released into the air by wood stoves cause damage to those who breathe them. This is a particularly acute problem in communities in central and northern British Columbia, or even in the Kootenays, where it gets cold during the winter and people burn materials in wood stoves....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says that I'm kidding about it getting cold in the north. I can understand why he's saying that. He spends so much time here in Victoria, and not enough time in the north with his constituents, that he wouldn't know any better. In any event, I hope he is benefiting from this information, and I am sure that he will support the regulations before the House.
It often happens that when people use their wood stoves the air is being relatively still, the smoke hovers above a community and gets trapped in, let's say, an inversion layer. People breathe in those particulates and they cause health problems. We have agreed to move towards new standards for wood stoves so that stoves that are coming onto the market will meet higher standards -- one of our other initiatives with regard to clean air under the provisions of the Waste Management Act.
That concludes my comments with regard to this legislation. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that there are environmental and health imperatives with regard to this legislation, and I commend this bill for the consideration of the House and urge its passage.
M. de Jong: In the short time that I've been here I have come to regard the minister as an able parliamentarian. That is clearly a view that his caucus colleagues share in leaving him to hold the fort on his own.
If passed, this bill will provide the government with jurisdiction to regulate air emissions for motor vehicles, new motor vehicles, new engines, fuels and solid-fuel-burning domestic appliances -- which is something that the minister didn't speak about but which is also included in the bill. If the amendments to the Waste Management Act as set out in this bill are introduced, that is the jurisdiction that will flow to the government. The bill is deserving of support for that reason alone, and will have the support of the official opposition for that reason -- by virtue of the fact that it will vest that authority in the government.
The minister spoke at length about some of the needs that have arisen over time and that have given rise to the need for this sort of legislation. I can indicate that as a long time resident of the eastern Fraser Valley, we are well-acquainted with some of the difficulties that he has described. In fact, the example I most often cite is, as a young man, going to the Abbotsford Air Show on a sunny Sunday afternoon and having a look out at Mount Baker with the Snowbirds flying in front. Well, you can still go to the air show, and you can still look at the Snowbirds, but you can't see Mount Baker unless the prevailing winds are heading in just the right direction. That is because of the air quality problems travelling from the Vancouver area down the valley into its eastern portions. There has been a steady deterioration in our air quality, and certainly emissions from automobiles are a major contributor to that problem.
We are a province of valleys. I know that when we consider this problem, we tend to dwell on the Fraser Valley, the greater Vancouver region and southern Vancouver Island. But if one looks ahead even a few years, one can conceive of how these air quality difficulties will emerge in various parts of the province and won't restrict themselves to just the now more densely populated southwestern parts of the province. As I said, I believe that the government and the minister are correct to take steps now to avert a worsening of the problems.
That is not to say.... I think it's a classic characterization of the opposition that they generally make these pronouncements and then include the big "if." Here it comes: that is not to say that I don't have some concerns about what is in the bill -- indeed what's in the bill and what's not in the bill -- before the House.
In the first instance, in terms of what is in the bill -- and it's a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, I might add -- the bill contemplates differing standards for different regions of the province. That makes sense to a certain extent. But implicit in that sort of approach is the possibility of inequities arising. There is that potential for abuse, be it inadvertent or purposeful abuse, that we will at committee stage attempt to bring to the minister's attention.
The other question that arises out of that is just how practical it is, with movable chattels, to be enforcing or attempting to enforce differing standards as defined by geographic region. It may be that when we get to that stage of the debate, the minister is going to indicate that those are standards that he would see as more readily applicable to domestic appliances. But the fact is that the legislation is drafted in a way that would seem to contemplate differing
[ Page 11806 ]
emission standards for movable chattels like engines and vehicles. That is an aspect of this legislation we will seek to deal with in greater detail at committee stage.
I think the minister will agree that the success of the bill, and the success it enjoys in some of the objectives the minister has set out, will depend on the form of the regulations that will flow from the legislation, as provided for in it. Although I wasn't here when the first Environmental Assessment Act was introduced, that bill has come back before the House with a draft set of regulations. I think it would be helpful in circumstances such as this if we were to see a set of draft regulations. The minister has really made no secret about where he intends to go with the legislation. As he correctly points out, it is enabling legislation, and it would be unfair of me to suggest that he is being coy about where he intends to take the province. He has indicated that he is looking to California as a model and that he will base following regulations on that model. Nonetheless, that has created some concern among those sectors of the economy that stand to be most directly impacted.
[8:30]
The minister can say that he's going to be tough and steadfast, and that he's going to carry industry and the various sectors of the economy with him in achieving these goals, but I don't think that that necessarily has to be done in an alarmist way that causes unnecessary grief among those people who at this point feel they stand to lose a great deal or to be adversely affected by a process which, as I have already indicated, we in the official opposition accept as being necessary to the future environmental health of B.C. and the people who live in the province.
There are, of course, vehicle salespeople and dealerships who are concerned -- perhaps improperly or unjustifiably, but still concerned -- about what they are hearing from the automakers about their ability to supply various models and the effect this legislation may have on the price of vehicles. Those are legitimate concerns of a large number of British Columbians who are gainfully employed in that industry. The minister said he consulted with those individuals; I'm certainly not in a position to suggest otherwise, or to comment on the nature of those consultations that I was not privy to. Nonetheless, those concerns exist, and as the minister commends the legislation to this House, I alert him to the fact that we are receiving telephone calls and letters from people who have serious concerns about how this legislation is going to affect their well-being.
I return to what I said earlier about acknowledging that the success of the program the minister and government are embarking upon will hinge entirely upon the nature of the regulations that are introduced. We are hopeful that the government will set standards that are realistic and based on sound scientific data. In any of these sorts of debates, there is a tendency among those stakeholders who are most directly involved to present data which would necessarily further their position in as dramatic and effective a way as possible. I urge the minister to look beyond some of the rhetoric and to seek out sound scientific data upon which to base the regulations he is going to introduce.
With that in mind, some of the material I have been able to unearth relating to ozone emissions and vehicle emissions in the Vancouver area points out that between 1980 and 1991 the number of days where ozone levels were exceeded has been dropping steadily. That suggests that an ongoing effort has been undertaken to deal with the problem of emissions, and that is something the minister should take account of in drawing up the regulations that I am sure he will be tabling shortly.
The study the minister referred to in his comments to the House refers to some of the health-related data that emerged out of some studies that have taken place, one of those studies being the GVRD air quality management plan. I would alert the minister to the fact that there is a secondary source of data. I am cautious when I see that the compilation of the data is presented and sponsored by the automakers. Let's not kid ourselves, it is evident that self-interest is being promoted there. Nonetheless, though they are involved in its compilation and sponsorship, some of the groups that have conducted the studies are reputable firms. At the least, I am persuaded to regard some of their findings in a serious light. The point is made by those organizations that the GVRD study tends to overstate vehicle-exhaust particulate emission. It does so, I am advised, on the basis that it lumps all emissions together, including things like road dust -- which is certainly a function of vehicle use and affects our air quality, but isn't something that one can attribute directly to vehicle exhaust emissions. It is trite to to say that the imposition of California-style emission control won't impact on the environment at that level. Likewise, I have already alluded to the fact that in irrefutable data, carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles have been steadily declining in the past number of years. In saying that, I am also mindful that the minister said that industry often requires a goal that they can look to achieve, and we shouldn't be content in all instances to simply wait for industry to get there in their own good time. So I similarly appreciate those comments of the minister.
The same air quality management plan that the GVRD commissioned projected a doubling of population over a period of some 20 years, and similarly a doubling of vehicle miles travelled. If you accept that data, we are in much more serious difficulty than the minister has alluded to. I have no basis of knowing whether the minister is approaching it from this perspective or not, but please let us not fall into the trap of assuming that a doubling of population will automatically result in a doubling of vehicle miles travelled. If that is the approach that the Environment ministry or the government is taking, that is ill-conceived. We are going to be in much more serious trouble than even the minister is alluding to if we are going to be planning on that basis. Our objective and that of the government must be to plan out an urban transportation strategy that will proportionately reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled per capita, along with the strategy that the minister is embarking upon with respect to this proposed amendment to the Waste Management Act.
There is a difficulty insofar as this legislation will only affect new vehicles. Something needs to be done beyond this that relates to older vehicles. Some of the data is quite striking in terms of pre-1971 vehicles -- and there are about 60,000 of them on the road in British Columbia, contributing 8.1 tonnes of waste per day. There are 450,000 vehicles on the road that were built between 1971 and 1987, contributing 46 tonnes of waste per day here in British Columbia. It declines to the point that the 470,000 vehicles built between 1988 and 1993 contribute only 15,000 tonnes of similar waste per day, which is discharged into the environment. There needs to be a strategy to deal with this that goes beyond AirCare, one which would contemplate promoting the removal of some of these vehicles from our roadways. As I indicated earlier, I am leery of some of the schemes and proposals being presented by some of the major auto-makers, again, by virtue of the fact that they are certainly seeking to fulfil a self-evident self-interest in promoting those.
The minister has been quite candid that he seeks to introduce, achieve and enforce California-style emission
[ Page 11807 ]
standards here in British Columbia. He says: "I'm presenting this to industry as a challenge. I will not waver, and I will not waffle. Industry is going to comply with these standards, because they're the standards I'm going to set for them." I've already acknowledged that I assign no fault to a government that seeks to lead in a particular direction. Nonetheless, the minister needs to know, and should know, that some of the technology which he speaks about and presupposes to exist doesn't yet exist. He should be mindful of that when he sets the standards and regulations of which he speaks. Some of the zero-admission technology that he seeks to draw out of California and introduce to and encourage for our province isn't directly applicable. One sees that when one considers something as straightforward as the need for automobile heaters on vehicles used in California. If the technology is available -- and in some cases it isn't -- it is not directly transplantable, and the minister should be cognizant of that. I would urge him to remain cognizant of that when he drafts the regulations, which we will expect to see in fairly short order.
He will also know that some of the vehicle emission standards that have been applied in California do not apply to low-volume manufacturers. There is nothing in this bill which suggests that there will be any exemption for low-volume manufacturers, so that is something we will want to canvass with the minister in committee stage. If these regulations are going to be introduced and enforced, the official opposition on this side of the House will do everything we can to ensure that they are enforced equitably and fairly, across the board, both in terms of geography, where that's applicable, and at the manufacturing level.
The last point I want to make relates to something that doesn't appear in the bill, but for which we on this side of the House have some concern and suspicion, and that is that this government not move in the direction of establishing a sizable bureaucracy that would be charged with the task of enforcement. I don't say that lightly, because the minister would be quite correct to stand up and point out that if we're going to introduce legislation, it should be introduced in a meaningful and equitable way, but it should also include a mechanism for enforcement. Rules that can't or won't be enforced are meaningless. Nonetheless, there is a mechanism now in place that the government and the ministry could tap into and that would preclude the need to establish some sizable and significant bureaucracy whose sole function would be the enforcement of these environmental vehicle emission regulations. That exists at the manufacturing source. It represents a degree of self-regulation. I'm not saying to the minister that we should abdicate total responsibility and leave industry to its own devices to enforce the regulations he's introducing; what I'm saying is that that mechanism exists. To a large extent there is already self-regulation in the automotive industry, and if these regulations can be introduced in a way that takes advantage of the previously existing self-regulatory process, then that is going to save British Columbians a great deal of money.
[8:45]
I've not heard anything from the minister -- and there's certainly nothing in the act -- that suggests an environmental vehicle emission police force, but we will be watching to ensure that that doesn't arise, because in our view, there is no demonstrable need for that to take place at this point.
In summary, as I pointed out right from the outset, the government is taking the step of enacting enabling legislation that will grant it the jurisdiction to enforce vehicle emission regulations and standards. That is a goal that we support, and for that reason the government will enjoy the support of the official opposition.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak against Bill 35, the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994. Our caucus has talked quite a bit about this bill. We realize that there is a problem with the environment, especially with the growth that's happening in the lower mainland. We find that it would have been a lot easier for us to accept legislation had the minister brought the regulations forward along with this bill.
It still amazes me that this government just decides, all of a sudden, one day.... I don't know if somebody from the green side gives them a little poke with a cattle prod or something, but all of a sudden they just jump in and do something like this. They throw it out there instead of looking at it, much like they did in the Tatshenshini. The response there was obvious. What this government did with that area was not well thought out.
This is another reason: I know that we have to look after air quality, especially in the lower mainland, but the least we should have are the regulations that go along with this bill so that we as a caucus would know just exactly where this government is going. This bill allows the government to do a broad range of things that may be damaging. In fact, I could almost say that just about every piece of legislation this government has brought forward has been damaging in one way or another.
The Minister of Environment would have been wise to read Business Week just awhile ago, where they talked about the California regulations and the electric vehicles that were going to be put on the road. The magazine compares a series of commercial electric vehicles that will be ready for sale in California by the 1998 deadline. It looked at the Ford Ecostar and found the following facts: cost without subsidy is $100,000 per vehicle; cargo capacity is 800 pounds; acceleration is sluggish -- I know the minister does not like that -- maximum speed is 70 miles an hour -- I'm certain he doesn't like that, either -- and the maximum range is 100 miles, less in cold weather. One hundred miles may do for someone in the lower mainland who is driving from the Fraser Valley to downtown Vancouver and back again, and that's all they do. But I can tell you that in the part of the province where I and a lot of people live, not just in the north, they travel an awful lot more than 100 miles in a day. I know this government wouldn't realize that. I know they don't know anything about the interior. I know they don't know that when people work in the logging industry, they have to load all kinds of things into their vehicles and haul it out to the site. All they think about is driving from the Fraser Valley to downtown Vancouver. The Liberals' response, I would say, is almost the same. They can only relate to the air quality in the lower mainland, as the critic noted.
On top of it, after driving 100 miles the battery charge time is six to seven hours. Well, let me tell you that people in my constituency drive maybe 400 or 500 miles a day and there aren't enough hours in the day to keep this vehicle on the road. I don't think the minister has looked that closely -- and this article did -- at battery life.
And what kind of batteries are they? Lead-acid batteries? Oh, that's good for the environment; we really like that. On top of that, the expensive EV battery packs can burn out in as little as two years and cost thousands of dollars to replace. The flip side of that is that no one has decided what we're going to do with all these old batteries. What are we going to do with that waste? The sodium-sulphur battery packs weigh 780 pounds and operate at 650 degrees Fahrenheit. They freeze if left unplugged for several days. Well, I can tell you that an awful lot of the province is going to have some frozen batteries.
[ Page 11808 ]
But then this minister has never thought about anything other than driving from Esquimalt down to the office or from the Fraser Valley into Vancouver.
An Hon. Member: And up to the ski hill.
R. Neufeld: You're going to have a hard time getting up to the ski hill. In fact, you're going to have to get someone with a gas-powered vehicle to pull you. An electric battery needs plenty of energy for long-range power, for climbing hills or accelerating -- climbing hills to ski hills. It also must be cheap, long-lived and safe. So far, no battery has it all.
Hon. M. Sihota: Is this in defence of your Harley?
R. Neufeld: He's asking me about my Harley. I don't have a Harley. That's interesting. I don't know; maybe somebody over there has a Harley.
The technology has not moved far enough. But this minister is trying to react to the green world -- "Oh, we're going to do these great, wonderful things for British Columbia" -- before really studying it and finding out just what it's all about. The minister's been driving around in a small electric truck. I saw it out in front of the buildings the other day. I don't know whether he has ever calculated the cost of electricity to operate that vehicle or how much you can carry. I noticed the box -- the cargo area -- was full of batteries. Well, that's fine for the minister, who's only packing a briefcase back and forth to work. But it's not fine for most British Columbians, the real working people in the province who are out there making the money, paying the taxes and keeping the economy going so we can enjoy the things we do in this province.
The minister tends to talk about Mexico City. They say all these terrible things that are happening in other parts of the world and compare them to British Columbia. That's the way this government works: they just try to scare everyone.
They didn't do their homework before they introduced this bill, or the minister would have had his regulations along with the bill so we would have known what was going to happen. But no, they didn't.
You know, companies in the U.S. have been competing for an awful lot of money that's available to try and develop some alternative or electric vehicles that will work. That's in California -- California's even different than the lower mainland. They've been working for quite a number of years and spending millions of dollars trying to do it, and they still haven't come up with an efficient electric vehicle that will meet the needs of the population as we see them today. We've seen automobile companies try steam, electric batteries and gasoline in cars at the turn of the century. Gasoline won the contest because it's cheap, efficient and powerful. That fact remains true today. Gasoline costs less per kilometre to operate an engine than electricity. It's clean-burning. The member for Matsqui talked about the clean-burning new vehicles on the road today. Will they cause more damage to the environment than the extra hydro dams that would be needed? No one thinks about that. We all think that this wonderful thing, which lights the light bulbs and which we are going to plug these cars into, comes -- I don't know -- out of the sky or off the trees in the back yard, just like where this government thinks money comes from.
At some time you have to face reality and decide: do we want more dams in British Columbia? Do we want a few more Kemano projects? Do we want a few more Columbia and Peace River dams? Or do we want nuclear power? That's probably exactly where these people are going: we're going to have nuclear power. Or do we want more fossil-fuel generating stations like the Burrard station? Everybody in Vancouver talks about how terrible it is and about the updating that B.C. Hydro is doing on it -- and here we're talking about putting a quota on the number of vehicles in the province that have to be powered by electricity.
There are an awful lot of old cars, which are the heavy polluters. There are ways to start cleaning up our air without getting this radical. An idea that's tried, tested and true in California and in other parts of the U.S. is the removal of those old clunkers off the road. They pay a bounty or whatever to get them off the road. That would clean up our environment an awful lot. If you looked around the lower mainland and took all the older cars off the road that aren't efficient, it would do a number of things. It would clean up the environment, and it would cause the economy to pick up a little. But if this government stays in power and continues to raise taxes the way they have, I don't know who is going to have any money to buy a new vehicle.
Last year British Columbia had to purchase hydro-electricity to meet the demand. We couldn't meet our own demands in hydroelectricity last year, so we purchased it from other areas. We purchased it from the U.S., which generated it, I guess, with nuclear power or maybe with fossil-fuel generating stations; we purchased it from Alberta, where they generate their electricity mainly from coal.
We have a government that wants to introduce legislation that's going to make us have so many zero-emission vehicles on the road by a certain time, and that's electric vehicles -- and I'm only guessing because, again, the regulations are not here. That thought hasn't gone far enough. The minister and his government should look a little closer at just exactly what they're doing.
Some of these actions make some sense in smog-filled California. California controls 10 percent of all North American car sales every year. The minister talks about how bad it is in areas like Mexico City, where birds fall out of the sky from the carbon monoxide and all of those things. But when you start putting the stats together on British Columbia, California and Mexico City, there's an awful difference. In Los Angeles, of course, the smog is a significantly greater problem than it is in greater Vancouver. In British Columbia we may not be prepared to make the trade-offs for building more dams or Burrard generating stations in order to meet the new electricity demands that will be created by electric vehicles. We have a different climate, a different smog problem, and may require different pollution solutions than California does. British Columbia has only one-tenth the smog problem of Los Angeles, and one-tenth of the market does not mean that we have to follow in step with what the Americans are doing. At the very least we should give ourselves time to watch and to learn from the experiment in California. As it evolves and works, and as we see what would work in British Columbia, then we should apply it in British Columbia. We have no problem with that. We should not rush into a situation which penalizes B.C. consumers and B.C. auto dealers when we have time to look and learn from other jurisdictions.
[9:00]
This minister talks about wanting to have the leading edge, and wanting to be the toughest in Canada and in North America. The problem is that he is not sure what he wants to be toughest about. Instead of forcing the public to do it, why doesn't the government try a small fleet of vehicles? Heaven knows, we have enough vehicles within government that we could try some electric vehicles or something along that line to see what could be done. There are better solutions. The minister spoke about the hydrogen technology, which is clean
[ Page 11809 ]
but not emission-free, and which may be a much better solution in the long term than encouraging electric vehicles.
The minister also spoke about -- and the regulations will come later on -- circumstances in which, much like California, service stations will have to have a variety of services for people. As for the electric cars, I don't know what people are going to do for the seven hours they are stopped there so that they can travel another hundred miles on their journey. It would be interesting to see what happens. The minister talked about the fact that these service stations were going to have to supply petroleum products, ethanol, propane, natural gas and electricity. It's interesting that we would even talk about doing that. Right now we have service stations that only supply propane. There's nothing wrong with that. If he demands that each service station across the province supply all of these, he has not done his homework. I can tell you that to put in a system to supply natural gas for vehicles is horrendously expensive. We have a number of them in the north, simply because that's where all the natural gas in British Columbia comes from. The service stations that supply it went to an awful cost to put those facilities in.
The other thing that amazes me is that this government talks about propane -- and propane is a fairly clean-burning fuel. What did this government do the first year in office? They put a road tax on propane that comes into effect, I think, next year. Does that encourage anyone to switch to propane? No, it doesn't. This government that talks about no new taxes is going to increase fees wherever they can, and fees come from the people that will convert to propane. This bill twice talks about fees; it twice talks about regulating the fees for different services.
British Columbia is simply not in the kind of environmental crisis this minister wants to portray. We do not need this legislation today; we can afford the time to find a better solution.
Regulations for different areas are going to be very interesting. I don't quite know how the minister is going to control vehicles bought out of province and transferred in and maybe used on the lower mainland. I don't know how in the north, where we experience extremely cold temperatures in the winter, we're going to force the use of electric vehicles. It will take twice the batteries: one to run the heater and the other to run the vehicle 50 miles. You'll have to have someone along with you, because you can only work for so many hours and then you have to have a little rest. So it's not going to be very efficient. I don't know how you're going to have your regulations. Let's say that this government actually does listen to the people who live outside the lower mainland, and they say: "You're not going to be subject to the same regulations in the north that they are in the south." So what happens when you drive from Prince George to Vancouver? What do you do -- park your vehicle at Hope and jump into an electric vehicle and drive in the rest of the way? How do you regulate that? This government absolutely amazes me. They bring in a piece of legislation like this and try to tell the people of British Columbia that we're going to save lives; we're going to save -- what? -- $75 million in crop damage. It's absolutely amazing. It plays on people in the wrong way, and it's not fair.
The other part of this bill deals with solid fuels. Again no regulations. We don't know exactly what it means. The minister did recognize that in the north it is a little colder, and that people use fireplaces and wood stoves. They use an awful lot of them. It's amazing. In the north there are many people who have to heat with wood. They don't have access to a clean-burning fuel such as natural gas, because this government saw fit, as soon as they came into office, to remove the subsidy that would help those people to hook up to natural gas in some of those areas where infrastructure costs are greater. But what has happened in the lower mainland? We're giving all kinds of subsidies away on Vancouver Island to hook up to natural gas, but those people up there don't have it. Now we have a minister coming along, and he's going to tell those people that they can't use their wood stoves. That's another area that in this bill this minister has not thought through very far.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In the north we need -- and not just in Peace River North but in a good part of the province, where people need wood stoves.... They go out and collect their wood a year early, and they find it to be a lot cheaper to heat their homes. But the minister has skimmed right over that: "No, we're going to stop you from using wood stoves." I hope that, along with it, this minister bans fireplaces in the lower mainland, where most of the people live. If we can't use solid-wood-burning stoves, then let's ban fireplaces in the lower mainland -- Vancouver and Victoria. Then we'll see exactly how serious this minister is about that problem of burning wood. If he's really serious, he's not just going to look at the people in the north and stop them from using wood; he's going to look all over the province. But I would say that this minister doesn't have the backbone to go into Esquimalt and tell all those people that have had fireplaces for the last 35 or 40 years that they can't use them anymore. I would say that's exactly what's going to happen. Again, we'll let the people where the population is continue, because we don't want to upset them. But those people who need it because of the weather, because it's cold in the north and because they have no alternative, other than diesel fuel -- and there are many of them all across British Columbia who heat that way.... This minister is going to do something that will affect them greatly.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
We can continue to make improvements to conventional automobile technology while looking to the future more carefully. I say that because we can; all we have to do is watch what's happening in California and see how well they're doing down there. Let's bring in the California-developed technology that would work in the southern part of British Columbia when the time is right.
If there's one lesson that government should have learned in the past decade, it 's that government should not be picking and choosing technologies for our marketplace. Zero-emission vehicles may not be the long-term answer to our air quality problems. Adopting uniform standards for wood stoves and barbecues with no relation to their geographical location may not be the best way to deal with pollution concerns. There are jurisdictions north of us that burn used vehicle oil in stoves in a clean way; they get rid of that used oil at the source. I know that the Yukon does. It's easy and it's cheap to burn that used oil.
We should be doing the same thing in British Columbia. That's one area we could work on. It would help those people in those cold areas in the north. Every time business people who own a number of trucks drain a truck, ten gallons of used oil comes out. I'm not sure where all that used oil goes all the time; I don't think any of us are. But if that person were allowed to burn that used oil in a furnace such as those used in the northeastern United States, maybe we would see a cleanup there, because anyone who thinks
[ Page 11810 ]
it's cheap to move used oil from Fort Nelson to Vancouver should have a look at the cost. You'll see that maybe some of our used oil isn't going to the right place, and that it's going into landfills when it should really be used for other things.
Those are areas where this government could look at some of those things and excel -- and let people burn the wood. But no, we come down with a heavy-handed government because we're going to have birds falling out of the sky in Vancouver, we're going to have birds falling out of the sky in Esquimalt. We relate it to those kinds of things so we can scare the public into believing that some of the things in this bill are really going to help them.
I urge the government and caucus to put reason ahead of politics, and to drop this bill in favour of studying pollution solutions before imposing them on the people of British Columbia without firm, solid studies. With that, I can tell you that we will be voting against this bill.
D. Symons: Actually, the member for Peace River North said many of the things I was going to say, so I'll just hit a few of the highlights and move on very quickly.
He talked about the cost of batteries, particularly the sodium-sulphur batteries. The figure I have is that it's $15,000 if they produce them in a lower quantity. I'm sure that when they get into mass production, those costs will come down. Nevertheless, we find that besides the very high cost of the vehicle, the cost of battery replacements every two years is going to make it extremely expensive. I would hope that during committee stage, maybe the minister will come back and give us some of these figures that we may be looking at.
One of the ways of spreading costs around, I guess, is to put a premium on every gasoline-powered car -- a basic charge of an extra $1,000 or $1,500 -- because nobody's going to buy an electric car, not at the cost it would be. You'd have to subsidize the cost of that by putting a premium on the price of gasoline-powered vehicles. I rather suspect that's what they're going to do in California. There is no doubt that this minister seems to have been really impressed with California, and therefore he has brought those ideas up here.
One thing the previous speaker didn't mention was that batteries become a lot less efficient as the temperature drops. So up north in the Peace River area, not only are you going to want some heat in that vehicle, which the gasoline motor more or less produces as a by-product, but the battery you'd need to give you the heat would be a lot less efficient once you got down to low temperatures. So bringing California technology to British Columbia doesn't always work, because California does not experience the temperature extremes that we do across this province.
The Ballard fuel cell was one of the other types of motors the minister mentioned. Certainly the Ballard fuel cell has one drawback: they have not yet found a convenient, inexpensive way to produce the hydrogen that would operate that fuel cell. Right now, hydrogen is very expensive. They get it very cheaply as a by-product in the making of bleach products, but that's only in small quantities. If we wanted to use it in fleets of vehicles, we don't produce that much hydrogen as a by-product. We'd have to produce it as the main product, and right now that would be an expensive process.
[9:15]
So again, when the minister mentions these various technologies, I would like him to fill in during committee stage what some of these costs are going to be. Before we impose an environmental solution to the automobile here, we should know what it's going to cost us. This bill doesn't address that issue at all, and that's something we really have to know.
Thirdly, the member mentioned alternative fuel using methanol. It's interesting to note that the minister was in California recently. I read that California has had their state vehicles operating on methanol, and they've discovered that the vehicles wear out much more quickly. The methanol is extremely hard on engines, and they've stopped using methanol as fuel in their state cars because it was wearing the cars out too quickly and was much too expensive. What are we doing here? The minister is testing a methanol-type car.
So I think these sorts of issues really should be looked into before we bring in a bill that's going to impose that upon the citizens of British Columbia. I agree with the concept of this bill. I agree wholeheartedly that we have to look at alternative methods of transporting people in order that we end up addressing the pollution problems presented by the automobile. It produces 60 percent of the emissions in our atmosphere around the lower mainland, and that has to be addressed.
But at the same time, we also have to tell people what the costs are going to be. To simply say that we're going to solve this problem by bringing in emission-free vehicles at 2 percent per year is only part of the solution. We also have to look at alternative methods of transporting people. Rather than charging everybody with the idea of bringing in emission-free vehicles, let's try to get them out of the vehicles, period, by putting in efficient alternative forms of transportation. I'd like to see the government moving more in that direction as well.
My main questions in committee stage will be to hear some analysis of the costs that the provisions of this bill will bring into the province. I also share the concerns of the previous speaker. Although I accept the concept of this and the principle of cleaning up the environment, I'm rather hesitant to accept bills that leave so much to later regulations that when we pass a bill, we really don't know what we're passing. So with those few comments, I'll take my seat.
R. Chisholm: I'm supportive of what the minister is trying to accomplish. The bill shows that he's trying to go in the right direction. But again I have to state, as other members before me, that without the regulations, we really don't have the whole picture. We have a general philosophy and a theory of where he wants to go but not how he's going to get there.
There are a few things wrong with the way the minister has developed his plan -- one you heard from the member of the Reform Party, who said: "How far will the electric car go? What can it carry?" There are problems with this technology. This technology is not where they expected it. Twenty years ago they thought this technology would be good now, but it's not there yet.
And where does the electricity come from? Electricity has to be generated in a cogeneration facility, a hydro-powered dam or by nuclear power. These create waste themselves. Just take a look at Burrard. After all, back in 1990 we knew what Burrard was doing; and we still haven't cleaned that up. If this government's really serious, why hasn't that been cleaned up?
I have brought forward bills on ethanol in this House. They have yet to be debated. They were brought forward in 1991. Ethanol is a very valid alternative, but the bills have yet to be debated. I can give you all the facts and figures for them.
[ Page 11811 ]
With respect to alternative fuels, let's talk about methanol. It has been banned in Los Angeles and Seattle. The following article appeared in the Province on Monday, December 20:
"After spending $102 million (U.S.) on methanol buses, Los Angeles county transit officials are ready to abandon the anti-pollution program. Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members say the buses cost too much to operate and are plagued by mechanical troubles."
It's the corrosive part of methanol that is creating the problems.
"In Seattle for instance, a five-year methanol demonstration program was shut down after three years because of high costs, said Jim Boon, alternative fuel coordinator with Seattle's Metro."
These things have been tested. Why don't they go to the other jurisdictions and take a look at what has been proven true and what has failed? The facts are there; the press knows about it. The studies are there and they have spent the money. So why are we going out to test them?
Another thing we have to look at is alternative fuels. Propane, natural gas, oil and methanol are non-renewable; they are petroleum-based. Ethanol is renewable. You can grow grain and produce ethanol through a distillation method. If you don't want to use grain you can use hog fuel, which is just waste wood by-products from forestry. If you don't want to use that -- we keep talking about how our landfills are overfilled -- we can produce ethanol from waste newspaper.
If you add 10 percent ethanol to gasoline you will reduce the carbon dioxide out of the tailpipe by 5.9 percent, carbon monoxide by 25 percent, volatile organic compounds by 8.5 percent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 percent and urban ozone by 5.3 percent. These are facts that have been proven by the EPA as part of the Green Plan of the federal government in Canada. It is one of the choice products, yet this government has yet to debate it. If we put 10 percent ethanol into the automobiles we have on the road today, it would clean it up by that much. It doesn't cost a cent. We would put all our grain growers back to work. There are companies biting at the bit to get into this province to put a plant in to supply it, if they had a customer. Mohawk does it right now.
I don't want to promote a company, but they are competing in the open market and they are selling their product. As a matter of fact, if you want to pass your next AirCare test just go down and use Mohawk gasoline for a month and you'll pass it. It tells you something; it tells you that if you use ethanol it cleans it up. Even if you got 2 percent of the cars using this by the year 1998 -- and I tell you right now that they don't have the technology -- guess what: you'd still have 98 percent of cars using gasoline or methanol or whatever. If you want to talk about propane, guess what: DND took their vehicles off propane. They don't use it anymore. Why? Because it was dangerous. Because gas stations blew up; vehicles blew up. Natural gas? I think we can use a non-renewable resource for something a little more important than propelling a car around -- like maybe heating our homes, that type of thing. Or there's cogeneration, which is much cleaner than using coal. We have better uses for these non-renewable fossil fuels. We have all this garbage that just sits there in landfills and builds and builds. Why doesn't this government look at that?
There is another problem with these so-called sources of energy. I'll quote from Alternative Transportation Fuels. If you want to go to a methanol vehicle, it's going to cost you up to $2,000 to change over. If you want to go to propane, you're looking at $1,500 to $2,000 per vehicle. If you want to go to natural gas, you're looking at the same price range. We cannot afford the tax breaks to have the population of British Columbia change their vehicles over. We're talking about all the new cars being modified. What happens to the other umpteen millions that are on the road spewing out pollution?
Let's say that we have to change over a fuel station. I'll quote from this book. Let's look at natural gas conversion scenarios. One station is $250,000. Propane costs $40,000, with a 15-year station life. It goes on. They can give you all these facts, hon. Speaker. Methanol costs $150,000 for one station. Ethanol. This is a blank page; it doesn't cost anything. As long as we grow grain, guess what. It's there.
Another thing about this grain.... If you want to talk about grain, hon. Speaker -- and seeing that I'm the Agriculture critic, I have a little interest there -- we can't sell all our grain. Why? Because we can't compete with the prices of the EEC or the Americans. We've had problems in the eastern part of British Columbia for years because of droughts or because of the price of grain. Our grain growers haven't been at work. This would put them all back to work. This would rebuild rural British Columbia.
Have we debated the ethanol bill from 1991 yet? No. Back in 1991, in the Fraser Valley, I could see the trees on the side of the hill two or three miles away in Chilliwack; in 1994, I can't see the trees for about 100 days a year. Why is that? It's because of all the pollution from 85 percent of the automobiles in that valley. If we are looking at another 1.5 million people settling in that valley in the next 20 years, what will happen? In 1998, 2 percent of the cars will be electric, but they aren't going to work. This isn't going to help us much. We have to have something that complements that solution. If they're going to test electric vehicles, let's complement that in the meantime. Let's put something in place that is cost-effective and that will cut the pollution right now. It should have been done back in 1991. As a matter of fact, it should have been done back in the early eighties by previous governments, but it wasn't.
If this government really wants to do something substantive, then they will state right now: "We are going to say 10 percent mandatory ethanol in the fuel in this province." That will clean it up. It won't cost the government or the taxpayer anything. The dealerships selling the fuel will not have to modify, and we will automatically clean up the atmosphere, by upwards of 40 percent of the emissions coming out of the tailpipes of all vehicles in British Columbia at this time.
Why aren't we doing something constructive like that? Why are we standing here talking about somebody's dream? I appreciate the minister's dream about Ballard and all the rest, and I agree with him. At least he's trying. That's more than the former government did, I might add. But where are the regulations? Where are you going with this? It doesn't tell me how you're going to clear up the pollution in the Fraser Valley by 1998, if you have the 2 percent of electric cars sitting somewhere. Right now we have problems with brownouts. We're not going to have enough electricity. Where are we going? These are pretty simple questions.
All the studies that have been quoted, which should have been of help when making up this bill, have been thrown out the window. A headline in the Sun on Saturday, February 26, 1994, says: "Our Air Pollution Will Soar, Computer Predicts." And then: "Lower mainland air pollution levels in the next decade will be almost two-thirds higher than previously thought, a new computer model shows." They've been working on bad figures in the GVRD and other areas; these have now been proven wrong by the computers. So the
[ Page 11812 ]
problem we're looking at is even worse than the minister was thinking when he dreamt up these bills.
If we're really going to be serious about pollution, let's look at the big picture. Let's augment whatever the minister is trying to accomplish. If it's electric cars, let's augment it in the meantime with something that is effective and renewable and that will cut the pollution, so people aren't getting sick and so the agricultural crops -- the minister is quite correct -- will increase again. They're on the decrease because of these pollutants. People are getting sick; at this point in time in the Fraser Valley, because of the pollution, we have strange diseases that we don't understand. Well, let us make a decision now to do something about it. By one law, let's decrease the emissions out of the tailpipe by 40 percent.
Another point, if we're really serious about this, is that we are going to fix up one of the smokestacks at Burrard. It amazes me; we knew about this problem back in '89. This is particulates we're talking about. To fix up all the smokestacks at Burrard will cost $277 million. That particular Crown corporation had a profit of $1.4 billion, but they can't afford to do it all at once. It's amazing -- truly amazing. This is irrefutable; all they have to do is check their facts.
[9:30]
If we're really, really serious, let's look at the bigger picture; let's get off the gadgets. I can remember 20 years back when the electric car was going to be the end-all -- the saviour of the whole world. Well, it's 1994 now, and guess what: it's not much closer to the solution. As the hon. member for Peace River North stated, they can go for 100 miles -- these are facts -- and then you have to plug it in somewhere for seven or eight hours. What is the good of that in our society, where we're so mobile? What is the good of a vehicle that can carry 800 pounds? I weigh 200 myself and I've got four in my family. Guess what: we're history. I need two cars. It goes 70 miles per hour. I don't know if I can slow down to 70 miles an hour and be entertained. Anyway, the point is that it's not adequate for our society at this point in time, in 1994.
Let us turn around and put in something to augment it. Like I said, the minister is going in the right direction, and I will vote for this. At least he's making a stab and doing something about it. Maybe he will listen to some other solutions to augment his plan. I hope he does. If he doesn't, it would be very unfortunate. I will say one thing: this is more than the previous government did, and at least he's addressing the problem and saying that it does exist.
I do hope he is listening to my speech and that he is finding it constructive. I do not want to be here and degrade what he's trying to do, because he's trying to do the right thing. He's not necessarily on the right track in every case, but at least he's going in the right direction.
On that note, I will sit. I do hope the minister will take into account a few of the options I've spoken about. Maybe we can come up with a solution for places like the Fraser Valley, the Kootenays, and northern B.C. This province is far too beautiful for us to ruin it just because we aren't making the effort to rectify our problems.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak against Bill 35. I thought I would be joining the member for Chilliwack in voting against Bill 35. I listened with interest as he spoke for 20 minutes or so with quite a focused criticism of the legislation and then finished off by saying he'd be voting in support of it. I had thought that he and the member for Richmond Centre, given their criticisms of the bill, would logically follow through and vote against the legislation.
I listened with particular interest to the Minister of Environment when he introduced the bill. This minister was part of the government in 1992 that put British Columbians on notice that it was going to phase in a tax on alternative fuels. That was the first act of this government in office. They said: "Five years and we will be taxing alternative fuels such as propane, natural gas, and any other alternative fuel that may not presently be taxed." This is the Minister of Environment who supported that Speech from the Throne, who believed at that time that the government should phase out any kind of financial encouragement for British Columbians to use fuels that were kinder to the environment. He wasn't the Environment minister at that time, so perhaps it was for that reason that he didn't jump to his feet and speak in opposition to that government initiative during debate on the throne speech. My recollection is that he was quite supportive of the move by this government to take away the tax-free status of propane and natural gas. In many parts of British Columbia, propane particularly has become the fuel of choice. As you drive around this province, in many areas you will see propane advertised at 19.9 cents per litre, 21 cents per litre or 18 cents per litre. The reason for that price is that there is no road tax. It also happens that that fuel is kinder to the environment, something that I would have thought a minister who shared the commitment to the environment that this minister professes would stand behind. I would have thought that one of the things the Minister of Environment would have said prior to introducing Bill 35 was that we were going to continue to encourage British Columbians to use alternative fuels -- natural gas, propane, methanol and ethanol -- and that we were going to try to make sure that some of the older, more heavily polluting vehicles, particularly trucks, continue to convert to propane. That would have a far greater impact on the environment than the introduction of electric cars as 2 percent of the fleet.
It was also interesting to listen to the minister talk about his experiences in California with the Ballard bus. Is this the same minister who was critical of the former government for its support of the Ballard hydrogen fuel cell? Is this the same member who stood up and went after the previous government because it was throwing money away on the Ballard hydrogen fuel cell? Indeed, this minister, who now takes ownership of his Ballard hydrogen-powered bus -- our bus.... I was at the old Expo site in 1991 when, prior to the election, that bus was put on the road. It wasn't put on the road by this government. Maybe they shipped it to California in a diesel-fuel truck, and then rode around the streets of Los Angeles feeling like they were really on the cutting edge of technology. These fellows first criticize it, and then ride around in it and pretend it's their idea.
What we have now is this scheme that's going to force British Columbians to buy electrically powered cars. I have been in the automobile business. I understand what's necessary to make a system like that work. What the government is going to have to say, at least to domestic manufacturers, is that they are going to be required to meet a share of the standards that we set in order to sell vehicles in British Columbia. The minister is going to have to say to domestic manufacturers: "You are going to have to sell a percentage of all of your new vehicles that meet our standards." If consumers find the $100,000 cost quoted on the Ford van to be a little steep, they aren't likely to buy it. So the minister then has a choice. He can tell the manufacturers that they simply have to cut back the sale of their gasoline-powered models, or what they might want to do is add a few thousand dollars to each of the gasoline-powered cars to
[ Page 11813 ]
bring down the price of the electric model so they can sell it. That may sound like a workable solution. Indeed, it may be the only way that you will get consumers to willingly buy one of these electrically powered vehicles.
The minister says that he's looked at the California model; he looks at what California is doing, and he likes what they're doing in the area of electric cars. Of course, he didn't notice that in California it doesn't get down to 10, 20, 30 or 40 below zero. He didn't happen to notice that when you get down below zero, batteries become even less efficient than they are at warm temperatures. Perhaps he didn't notice that batteries freeze when they get cold. But I suppose the minister is going to use a little more of that electricity to keep the battery warm. So when you park at work, you're not going to have to plug in your electric block heater to keep your motor oil warm; you're going to have to plug your battery in to keep it warm.
What are you going to do with some of the other foreign manufacturers -- Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar -- that don't produce an electric car? Are you going to make an exemption for the manufacturers of expensive automobiles that don't have an electric model? Are you going to say to BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar: "It's all right. We'll let you.... You don't have to meet the test." Or are you going to say to them: "I'm sorry, Mr. Dealer, your manufacturer doesn't have an electric model so you won't be selling any of your gas models in British Columbia." I don't think either of those solutions is very palatable. But it's going to be a challenge that this government is going to have to come to grips with pretty soon.
When you're forcing these electric cars on British Columbians, probably by subsidizing the electric model and adding those costs to the gasoline model, what are you going to do with those customers who decide they'll go to Alberta and buy one of the gas models that aren't subsidizing a percentage of electric cars? Are you going to put more border restrictions up that will prevent British Columbians from going to other parts of Canada to buy their automobiles? Because if you don't, Mr. Minister, you'll find that all of a sudden there will be some very large automobile dealerships selling gasoline-model cars on the B.C.-Alberta border. If you have to add as much as I believe you will to the price of the entire fleet in order to make the electric car attractive, then you are going to drive many consumers out of the province and into some other jurisdiction to buy their automobiles.
What about things like the fact that electric-model cars in California don't have defrosters -- nor do they need them -- to keep the frost off the windshield. Nor do those automobiles have grip tires with greater road resistance, which is necessary with the weather conditions found in many parts of the province. Indeed, is the minister going to require that these electric-model cars be sold only in certain parts of British Columbia? Is it going to be that dealers in Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and Smithers and Terrace and Prince George and Quesnel and Williams Lake and Cranbrook and Nelson and Kelowna and Kamloops are not going to be required to meet the electric-car quota? Is that how you're going to get around it? Mr. Minister, I think there are a lot of questions that I haven't seen the answers to.
I believe there are better ways of achieving what the minister has set out to achieve. As my colleague for Peace River North said, the first emphasis should be to get the oldest, most heavily polluting automobiles off the street. The fleet should be encouraged to be more tailpipe-efficient, if you like, and lower the levels of emissions from gasoline engines. Indeed, new cars on the market today provide a very small percentage of pollution per mile versus pollution from older cars. With the scheme laid out in Bill 35, I believe that British Columbians will be encouraged to hold onto their old cars longer. Because of this legislation, they will find it more difficult and more expensive to go and buy a new vehicle, whether it be a gas-powered one or an electric one. The effect of that will be to keep more and more older vehicles, particularly pre-1980, on the road.
[9:45]
I've heard the minister talk several times about the fact that the automobile industry resisted the catalytic converter. Somehow he draws a parallel between introducing a simple exhaust-pipe modification and requiring British Columbians to drive cars that they are probably going to be reluctant to drive. There is no comparison between the catalytic converter and the process that's set out in this legislation.
I think there are better ways. There are ways to encourage manufacturers to build even cleaner and more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars than they are today. The minister could step back from the stand that his government has taken on taxes on alternative fuels and assure British Columbians that they are not going to bring in road taxes on alternative fuels. He should encourage more and more of those older vehicles to convert either to natural gas or to propane.
The government could start to show the way. Rather than legislate people into driving a certain type of automobile or a certain mix of automobiles, why doesn't the minister, if he believes so strongly in this, ask the Purchasing Commission to buy these cars on a voluntary basis? If he really believes in this, the government should put its money where its mouth is. It should develop the profile that he seeks in its own fleet of automobiles and demonstrate to British Columbians how well these work. Aside from the minister's little half-ton electric truck that he carries his batteries back and forth to Esquimalt with, he should give to the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that fleet of vehicles. Demonstrate to British Columbians, show some real leadership, and convince people that indeed those are the kinds of changes we should have in our vehicles.
The ideology is shining through: we're going to force people; we're going to legislate people; we're going to impose on British Columbians what they aren't smart enough to recognize they want for themselves. "Big Brother knows best. We have the answer. We are going to show leadership on environmental emissions from automobiles not only in British Columbia but in Canada. We're going to lead the world."
That leadership should have started in the government's own fleet. Had we seen for the last couple of years a demonstration of perhaps a 10 percent electric component in the minister's fleet of cars in government, perhaps there wouldn't be the same kind of cynicism that exists today -- although I suspect that instead the minister might have found just how unworkable this particular initiative is.
In his opening remarks the minister took a great deal of pride in some of the things he had imposed on industry -- standards that they said they couldn't meet, but he'd been tough and he'd had the resolve and he'd shown them, and by gosh, they had met his standards. It wasn't long ago in the rotunda that the Premier introduced something called Forest Renewal B.C. At that time he said that in order for industry to do what government knew it had to do, they were going to have to pay another half a billion dollars a year in stumpage and royalties -- and he wasn't going to blink; they knew what was best. Well, a few of us believed that industry simply couldn't stand a 50 percent increase in royalty rates.
[ Page 11814 ]
To their credit, the government did blink. The government did realize that simply legislating a package, without having studied it, without knowing the implications of it, was going to cause hardship, and the government did step back.
If we have the shortsightedness to pass this legislation, I don't think it will be long before this minister or another minister will be bringing forth a package that will significantly amend this legislation -- kind of like the current Minister of Finance is doing with the actions of the previous Minister of Finance. We had two years bringing legislation in, and now we've spent the third year turning it all around. Indeed, in spite of the fact that this government believes that simply passing legislation makes things happen, they too have found on more than one occasion that it wasn't enough to pass legislation; you had to have done some study and some background.
Had the current government not been in such a hurry to get to the head of the pack, they might have looked a little more closely at what they were proposing and found that some of it simply didn't make good sense.
As you've probably gathered, hon. Speaker, when the division is called, I will be voting against Bill 35.
G. Wilson: I've listened to the entirety of this debate with a great deal of interest. I think there has been sincere debate to the extent that what has been offered by a number of members, if not all, is a concern that hopefully the minister has heard with respect to some of the provisions in this particular bill. There is a serious danger in this business when you step forward to do something, especially when it provides an initiative in an area where an initiative is desperately needed, that you are opening yourself to significant criticism from those who would seek to point out that there are different, better or other ways to do it. The fact is that British Columbia needs a clean air act in order to regulate emissions not only from automobiles, but from virtually every internal combustion source that is putting particulates, particularly chemical particulates, into the atmosphere, which is creating a great deal of hardship for members of our communities.
What is interesting is that the minister referred to matters of health care, costs of health care and people affected by health care issues and provisions as a result of contaminants in the atmosphere. I think the minister is correct. Quite clearly, if there is a problem that we face in this society, it's that we have for a long time believed that the atmosphere is a somewhat infinite receptacle into which we can continue to put effluent at an ongoing level and never have to worry about it because as long as there's a reasonable prevailing wind, it's going to take it somewhere else, we can forget about it and it's gone.
I firmly believe there was a major turning point in the lives of all people who inhabit this world and a profound awakening among people when, for the first time because of the space program, we were able to actually have a spacecraft in space photographing the entire globe. For the first time, we could picture planet Earth for what it is: a relatively small, somewhat insignificant in the larger cosmic sense, planet that has a finite system of systems. If we don't take some care to look after it and protect it, the life support systems we now take for granted will simply be diminished and be gone.
I heard a lot about whether this is good or bad legislation and whether we should or should not support it in principle. The fact is we don't really have a choice. This is not a question of: should we have this or should we not have this or should we have something else? As a society and as a community, we have to recognize that there are some real warning signs out there. If we don't take some collective action soon, which has nothing to do with partisan politics and absolutely nothing to do with whether the language of the bill is good or bad -- and we believe that the language of this bill is not as good as it could be, and we're going to provide the minister with some ways to clean it up in third reading -- future generations of British Columbians, Canadians, all of humankind, and the other support systems that we take for granted in our hydrosphere and our lithosphere are going to be contaminated beyond our ability to reclaim them. That's a fact.
We've talked a lot about particulate emissions in this debate, but we haven't talked about a single contributing factor that is equally as important as anything that we might put into the atmosphere through the burning of fuels and the by-products that burning a fuel creates. That is simply heat -- the addition of heat into our atmosphere in ever increasing amounts. There is something that we have to recognize, and it's called the law of entropy. It's a question of balance. The law of entropy talks about the balance of incoming solar energy with the outgoing of heat off-loading from the Earth's surface. The member for Matsqui pointed out that it's getting more and more difficult to see Mount Baker, and the member for Chilliwack said it's getting more and more difficult to see the trees in the Fraser Valley. If there's a reason why that is occurring, it's not only the particulate emissions that are actually in the atmosphere, it's that we are continually creating heat in all our daily activities. The heat generated rises into an atmosphere that is generally cooler and creates inversions which trap poisons in our atmosphere, which poisons the people, the plants and, generally, our hydrologic systems, because those particulates are returned to our water systems on the basis of our hydrologic cycle. That's a fact.
It seems to me that when we look at this bill we have to at least commend this minister for doing something. I'm critical of some of what's in here, because I think we could do it differently, and I think we could do it better. That's my job as an opposition member: to try to be constructively critical -- as I think the member for Chilliwack was who talked so eloquently about ethanol. He has had a private member's bill on the table before this House for at least two years, and it has not been read. It's unfortunate. If we were using the private members' day a little more effectively, and if we could bring forward those bills more effectively, we might have had it read. Who knows? We might have even taken action on it. But we have to commend this minister for at least trying to do something.
What we recognize here is a need to get at emissions in new automobiles. I guess my real suspicion when we look at this is that we're trying to attack diesel fuels, among others, and to promote -- in an overall sale of vehicles, through a vari-gas fleet that's offered for sale -- a standard of sale that is going to allow us an opportunity to reduce the kind of harmful emissions that will be available for sale. In particular, my guess is that diesel fuel has to be singled out.
When we start to look at that, we have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about what we're doing with respect to the private automobile, which has received a great deal of discussion here. I'll be the first to say that I could not agree more wholeheartedly with what I heard from members of the Reform Party with respect to the electric car. It is not the solution for British Columbia. It might be the solution for large urban U.S.A., but it isn't the solution for British Columbia for all of the reasons already articulated, which I'm not going to go back through. But what we have to
[ Page 11815 ]
recognize in the single automobile is that we in North America have grown to have a love affair with this vehicle that has to be questioned. It isn't just whether or not the new vehicles are going to have a proportion of electric cars, or whether we're going to have a proportion of clean, ethanol-fuelled cars or a proportion of cars that are going to have some other fuels -- hydrogen possibly. It's whether or not we are going to get to the point where we recognize that every individual in British Columbia -- indeed, Canada -- isn't going to be able to have a car, that the infrastructure we're putting in place with respect to private automobiles and the private auto industry, especially in our urban centres, is causing more problems on a day-to-day basis by virtue of the fact that we all want to have, as our individual rights would tell us we are allowed -- which I would question -- a private automobile.
[10:00]
Hon. Speaker, I would say to you that we have some concerns, as members of the Alliance, that while this bill takes some steps, it's not going to be workable, in the sense that it talks about a proportion of electric vehicles, where electricity is simply not efficient for fuelling mechanical energy production out of an automobile engine. It just is not efficient to do that. Combustible fuels, or the use of ethanol -- as has been suggested by the member for Chilliwack -- would be a more sensible alternative for immediate implementation.
But ultimately we're going to have to recognize that we have to stop this love affair with the individual, single automobile. That means that we have to start to seriously move toward other methods of moving goods and people. What it means is that, in urban centres in particular.... The points raised with respect to rural British Columbia are absolutely valid. The demand and need for an individual vehicle, if you're a rural British Columbian, is quite different than if you live in an urban centre. The capacity we have in British Columbia to make alternative methods available in the rural regions is quite different from that in the urban centres. So to have legislations drafted in urban B.C. for rural British Columbia by urban British Columbians doesn't work.
Clearly, we must recognize that the projected standards being put forward here -- with a projected population that those standards are based upon, and an expectation that as those populations continue to rise every individual is going to have a car -- are simply not on. They aren't because they can't be, because there are limits to growth -- something that members from this Alliance Party have been talking about in terms of our economy, social development and political growth. There are limits to our ability to grow.
It comes to mind, and I want to raise it now. I talked about the introduction of heat into the atmosphere and said we'd better start to pay attention to it because global warming is a serious problem.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Not only is it a serious problem with respect to the....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'd suggest that if members of the Liberal Party wish to have a separate conversation, they might want to do so out of the House. It's very distracting. If they're not interested in this debate, perhaps they'd take their conversations elsewhere.
I'll take my seat till the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove decides if he wants to participate or not.
Deputy Speaker: The debate will continue.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that as we start to look at the population growth and as population expands, we are not all going to be able to meet our transportation needs with the use of a private automobile. In fact, we are going to have to put in place mass rapid transit systems that will accommodate the possibility -- the opportunity -- for us to continue to move people and goods in a more cost-effective, efficient manner that simply will not provide the kind of pollution we currently see.
One of the ways we can do that is by committing ourselves to rapid-rail systems. We had a solution provided in part of this debate by the member for Chilliwack, who talked about ethanol fuel for automobiles. I'm suggesting that rather than focusing on a percentage of the fleet that would have to be electric cars, if we're really to talk about cleaning our atmosphere in this debate, the minister ought to focus on and talk about the introduction of a high-speed, rapid-rail system for the movement of people as well as goods.
We have noticed a trend from the 1970s through the 1980s and into the 1990s for much of our goods to be carried off ocean-borne transports, through our importation into the harbour, and by truck transport out into the Fraser Valley. So I find it interesting that when the minister looks toward his fleet provisions in Bill 35, he doesn't recognize, or certainly has not stipulated his recognition here, that we're going to have to find new, more creative and more innovative ways in which we could actually move our freight and goods to our markets in the east and the south. I suggest also that now we are starting into new technologies that allow us to have high-speed, magnetic-driven vehicles that will provide us an opportunity to move people much more effectively, in a much more cost-effective way.
I suggest also, in looking at the provisions for this, that if we put the money currently committed to provision of a variety of other research technologies in our energy sector into the provision of rapid transit -- and especially rapid rail -- the problems alluded to by the members from the Fraser Valley would be taken care of relatively quickly.
It solves two problems. It solves, first of all, the question of heat and heat-driven engines, which of course create localized global warming in our atmosphere and the problems associated with the development of those local urban heat waves. Second, it allows us an opportunity to address the expanding population in the Fraser Valley in terms of their movement into the urban centres.
I challenge this minister, if he is serious about dealing with this, to take up the first issue that's in front of this government right now with respect to the movement of the private automobile into the congested urban centres. It has to do with the Lions Gate Bridge. Right now we have a proposition ahead of us that says that we should build a second Lions Gate Bridge with three lanes to further facilitate and accommodate the entering of the private automobile into Vancouver. If we're serious about putting in place an overall transportation strategy -- and that's what we need -- in order to address the problems associated with clean air, it would seem to me that this government, rather than looking at two structures or new structures or tunnelling structures that would simply funnel greater and greater numbers of automobiles, especially private automobiles, into Vancouver, should be putting their research, their development and their technologies toward pollution-free rapid-rail systems.
[ Page 11816 ]
The latter part of this bill introduces a move towards solid fuel burning domestic appliance regulations. I suggest to the minister that this is a completely unworkable section of this bill. I appreciate the fact that the minister has allowed his staff to come forward and discuss it at some length with me. I believe this bill is trying to provide us with a way by which pellet fuels -- that is, these pelletized-wood-burning fuels -- will be regulated.
Quite clearly, it cannot regulate the average airtight wood-burning stove. To suggest that there can be emission limits for solid-fuel-burning domestic appliances of a class that might involve pelletized fuels is, I think, quite feasible and quite practical, but they amount to a very, very small percentage of the wood-burning stoves that are now available. To suggest that you can prescribe standards and specifications of solid fuels burned in domestic appliances -- i.e., wood -- to rural British Columbians who have a dependency on the use of wood and most of whom cut it off their back forty is ridiculous. Not only do these people use this as a primary heat source in many instances, but they also use it as a cooking source; they may also use it as a source for hot-water heating; they may also use it as a source for a variety of small commercial or even industrial activities that they might operate off their rural area. If they're on a farm, in particular, you'll find that that's how it is used.
Therefore the domestic appliance that is being talked about -- the wood-burning stove or an airtight stove -- will only be as good as the fuel that is burned in it. Quite clearly, depending on what kind of wood you're burning -- whether it's seasoned or green, whether it is burned in large quantity in terms of various combinations -- the amount of particulate material as well as other smoke and effluent going into the atmosphere will vary substantially. So it's a completely unworkable section -- save and except for pelletized fuel.
The minister's staff suggests that in fact they're looking at pelletized fuel. Therefore we would immediately suggest, when we get to committee stage, that this section really needs amending.
We have heard from members of the various parties as to whether or not this bill should or should not have support. Members of the Alliance are prepared to give tacit support to this bill in principle. We can say that clearly we have to take some action, but we have serious problems about the way this bill is drafted. We have serious problems about whether or not this bill is in fact going to functionally work.
First of all, we recognize not only that there is a cost component to the consumer and to the taxpayer, but that this bill also creates a significantly new and more complex bureaucracy, something that we oppose strongly. It also provides a free hand to the minister with respect to regulations. As much as we recognize the complexities of those regulations and how difficult they may be, we're concerned that they were not forthcoming for the entire bill.
I appreciate the fact that the minister's staff has provided regulations to the members of the Alliance for the solid-fuel-burning domestic appliance section of this bill. We have those, and we understand how they will apply. I appreciate the fact that those regulations were available for sections 24.4 and 24.5. Clearly, the regulation for the more contentious section dealing with motor vehicles has not yet been drafted. The concern we have about that is that this government is given virtually a blank cheque, through this enabling legislation, to draft that regulation, which may have some serious effect not only on the automotive industry but also, in our ajudgment, on whether this plan is workable at all.
We also recognize that there is a component here with respect to government testing and regulation. Our concern is very profound on that question. With the introduction of AirCare, through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, we saw significant problems in terms of a standard that was fairly applied across the consumers who were required to use it. In this instance, we recognize that this particular section of the act is going to apply only to new vehicles. Our concern is that the economics of the situation are quite likely to apply. Individuals will be more reluctant to purchase a new vehicle. They are likely to keep older vehicles on the road for longer periods of time and are likely to trade older vehicles in the British Columbia market, especially those that have originated from outside the borders, from Washington and Alberta. There is a real concern that what is likely to occur is a much more vibrant market for the sale of secondhand vehicles, particularly quality vehicles, that do not fall under these regulations. People will be looking toward the purchase of those vehicles much more than they will to being introduced to these new vehicles, which we're told, in communications we've made back east and in California -- and I caution that it's an industry figure -- would increase the cost of a vehicle by roughly $1,000.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I started my comments tonight by saying that we don't really have a choice. We have to do something about cleaning up the atmosphere. We have to recognize that we must respond to the warning signs out there in an effective way. If it means that we have to pay another $1,000 per new vehicle, then I would be the first to suggest that we should do so, if that's going to be a useful way to proceed.
Remember that this bill is looking at a very small percentage of auto emissions that have not already been taken care of with the implementation of stringent acts on auto emission standards. We are concentrating a great deal of time and energy in order to remove those emissions. Remember that a component that is equally as important has to do with our lifestyle, which generates ever-increasing amounts of heat into our atmosphere, particularly in the urban centres, creating inversions that allow for the trapping of emissions -- not just auto emissions but also particulate materials that occur naturally in the atmosphere -- in such concentrations that they create a tremendous problem for people who are susceptible to congestion, lung disease and other respiratory illnesses.
[10:15]
We recognize that the government has to do something. To that end, we congratulate this minister for having the courage to come forward and attempt it. We believe that some amendments can be made in committee stage that will make this bill much more effective and will remove some of the concerns we have, especially with respect to increased costs and those increased costs as they might apply to the expanding bureaucracy that will quite likely occur as a result of the regulatory authority and the aspects of government enforcement that are going to be a functional part of this bill.
The member for Chilliwack made a speech with respect to ethanol that I think is worth this minister re-reading in Hansard. The member for Chilliwack had a lot of very useful things to say. I hope the minister takes his comments seriously, because I think they were offered in a manner that was both constructive and informative. I would hope that the minister would hear the comments that I and other members of this Legislature have made with respect to providing a
[ Page 11817 ]
united front to a problem that certainly crosses any partisan political lines.
If we, as politicians, take seriously the goal toward zero emissions in the automotive industry, we must equally take seriously the removal of contaminants from every other source of emission into our atmosphere. I would argue that if we are to be effective in doing that, every one of us is going to have to rise above the partisan political wrangle that often takes place in this Legislature and work together in the interests of British Columbians, Canadians and all people on this finite planet Earth. Now is the time for us to start, in this small jurisdiction, to take care of those issues that need to be taken care of so desperately.
J. Tyabji: I don't intend to take up a lot of time in second reading.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I hear some members of the opposition cheering about that; they are often eager to end debate.
As the only member of the opposition from the interior -- other than the Reform Party -- I wanted to offer an insight into what this bill means to some of the interior communities. There has been a problem with air quality in the interior for some time. One of the problems that we have in the central Okanagan, as the Alliance leader was talking about, is air inversions. Air inversions can occur for a number of reasons -- because of geography or because of atmospheric emissions. When there are air emissions over any period of time there will be resulting health problems.
This bill is an important first step. There are some serious concerns with this bill which we will address in committee stage, and it's unfortunate that we don't have the regulations with which we can judge what this enabling legislation will be geared toward. But there is one major source of air particulates and heat that isn't being addressed, and that's slash burning and agricultural burning. I find it interesting that in a legislature where some of us have been calling for a number of years for an end to some of the major commercial sources of air emissions, such as smoke -- whether it be from industry, agriculture or forestry -- we see enabling legislation to deal with cars. Tailpipe emissions -- from cars, anyway -- is not one of the major contributors to some of the brown smog that we see, although it's a big one. Commercial traffic and some of the trucks that are not properly regulated or tested are the major contributors, and of course we have industry. We have the forest industry. Sometimes on clear days, when there aren't supposed to be inversions, there will be slash burning and very serious health complications that are always evidenced by the emergency room admittances, whether that's at Kelowna General Hospital or in the Kootenays.
I would encourage some of the members who aren't that familiar with the interior to take a drive through the province. Often in the fall you can turn a corner, enter a new valley and see the ash falling from the sky from slash burning. Although it isn't the large particulates that cause respiratory problems, the smoke in itself is a major concern, and most respirologists have been trying to get air emission controls for some period of time.
Having said that, one of the biggest concerns we have with regard to this bill that can be addressed in committee stage is that some of the language seems to indicate a Crown corporation is on the way, something similar -- as I would envision it, anyway -- to the liquor distribution branch, where there would be an integration of AirCare, ICBC and this bill to allow government to bring in testing cells for cars. If that is coming with this enabling legislation, that's obviously something that the Alliance members would be strongly opposed to, because there is really nothing that this enabling legislation calls for that cannot be provided in the private sector.
The only problem, that when we start to look at the minister's comments about how he believes the public would support green taxes and would be prepared to pay a bit more for the environment -- which may be true -- is that I don't think the public could support unnecessary Crown corporations or bureaucracy when there are options in the private sector. We know that this government has a tendency to create Crown corporations when they're not necessary, to spend a lot of money when it's not necessary and to create bureaucracies just because they happen to be so inclined.
We look at the mandate under one of the sections that talks about recording, reporting, and the frequency and regulation of that. In the absence of regulations to judge that, it sounds a lot like the kind of reporting structure currently in place for the liquor industry. All we have to do is look at the liquor industry to see where something that was supposed to be addressing one aspect of social needs ended up becoming an enormous bureaucracy with incredible powers, which has taken over an enormous chunk of a retail sector that could be better done in the private sector. Actually a large chunk of that could be dismantled; we would be better off and the taxpayers would be better off.
In this instance I could see, whether it be throughout ICBC as a Crown corporation or through an expansion of AirCare, that there are provisions here, and some of the language is consistent with the government taking on testing cells. The minister is nodding; I'm not sure if he's nodding about the debate. If the government is taking on testing cells, that will be a prohibitive cost. Whenever a cost is passed on to the consumers or passed on to the taxpayers, then we have a problem.
It's unfortunate, because I actually would like to spend a little more time in debate, but sensing the impatience of some of the other members and in deference to their desire to move on to another bill, I'll end more quickly than I'd be inclined. I have to say this on the record, hon. Speaker: I think it's a bit disgraceful that a bill of this magnitude is being called in the absence of almost all the government members, at a time of night when there's really....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Yes, three of them.
I don't think we're giving due prominence to this legislation....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The bill before us is for you to speak to, but the other matters are not before us at this moment, I don't believe.
J. Tyabji: I know I'm not supposed to call attention to the members who aren't here, but I really think that the issue of air quality is very important.
When anyone flies from Victoria to Vancouver on a sunny day, it's fairly easy to see why this is important, especially if you live in the Fraser Valley. In fact, sometimes as soon as you get into the air after leaving Kelowna, you can see the smog coming over from the lower mainland, and that's a bit frightening. I really think that we should be doing more to profile the bill and the issue in front of us, to try to make sure that the bill properly addresses all the concerns with air quality, the environment, acid rain and health problems.
Anyway, in deference to the environment of the House, I'll conclude fairly quickly. I think we obviously have to
[ Page 11818 ]
canvass it very thoroughly in committee stage, and on that I will not yield. I do wish that we had the regulations, because without the regulations we're going to be taking stabs in the dark. But the minister can be advised that in committee stage we would like to canvass the costs and what the specific application of the enabling legislation will be, with regard to: how the government plans to bring it about and whether it will be in partnership with the private sector; whether there will be a 60- or 70-year plan for a transportation strategy -- which doesn't seem to exist; what it means in terms of a long-term plan when the minister refers to specific regions where legislation and regulation will apply and areas that will be exempt; and how this fits in with the long-term plan for mass transit that some of his colleagues in cabinet are putting in place. I would imagine that this minister could not possibly be acting independently of his colleagues, who are setting up various transportation strategies. If they are doing that, then I hope in committee stage we can find out how that is integrated with this minister's air quality plan. With that, I end my comments.
The Speaker: The minister concludes debate.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was listening to the debate from the Reform and the Liberal members, but particularly the Reform members, because, as I've been saying to people around the corridors for the last year and a half, the next election really will be between our party and Reform, as has become more and more evident each day. As I was listening to the debate, it crossed my mind that obstacles are things that we see when we lose sight of our goals. It's evident when one listens to what the opposition has to say -- when they talk about whether the electric vehicles can go far enough, whether the batteries are proper, whether the regulations are attached, whether it should be methanol or ethanol, or whether the Ballard technology is going to work -- that the opposition in this House can't see the vision here.
They don't understand that if we were to acquiesce, particularly to what the Reform Party is arguing, and did not proceed with this type of legislation, we would have all of those second-class vehicles that don't comply with California's regulations dumped into the market here in British Columbia. Even a used-car salesman, as the leader of the Reform Party said that he was, knows full well that he ought not to be selling second-class vehicles when he can tell the customer that he's got vehicles on the floor that have the highest standards on the market.
The opposition, in particular the Reform Party, should wake up and smell the coffee.
R. Neufeld: What are you going to do with that Nissan car that you use?
Hon. M. Sihota: California, with its 25 million people....
R. Neufeld: What are you going to do with that Japanese car? You're such a....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. It's getting late. Stay asleep so we can get going.
[10:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's never too late for those who haven't seen the light to finally see it.
The fact remains that California, with its 25 million people -- the size of Canada in terms of its population -- and the New England states in the northern part of the United States have embraced these regulations. A full 50 percent of the market to the south of us has embraced these regulations, so they better wake up and smell the coffee. Change is happening. We here in British Columbia can join that overdue change in terms of environmental leadership, or we can sit back and be the doubters that the Reform are.
The kind of approach we're seeing from the Reform is the same kind of approach they took to pulp mill regulations when they were in government as Socreds. They said: "Oh no, we can't do it, because it's going to cost too much and because the scientific evidence isn't there." I give John Reynolds credit. Mr. Reynolds, the former Minister of Environment, had the jam to go to his cabinet and say: "We should do this." For a few moments there was some sense of environmental consciousness in that Socred/Reform caucus. But over the weekend the Premier of the day, Mr. Vander Zalm, had a couple of phone calls from industry, saying: "It can't happen because it's too expensive; it's scientifically impossible." He said to his Minister of Environment the next day: "It's not going to happen." To his credit, the Minister of Environment, Mr. Reynolds, quit.
We brought in those regulations in 1991: the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge regulations in North America -- 1.5 AOX per tonne. And you know what? People argued that it was scientifically impossible, that it was not economical, just like the hon. members of the Reform Party are now arguing with regard to these automobile emissions standards. Well, unlike for them, environmental consciousness on this side of the House does not last for just a few seconds. It's part of our makeup. It's what makes us New Democrats, and it's those environmental values that we bring to office. What we did was to hold firm. We did not waver. We said to the industry: "Those are the rules; those are the standards. Now get on with the task."
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's right. The hon. member says we were tough as a government. We were tough. And you know what that toughness produced? It produced compliance. The standard was 1.5 AOX per tonne, and it's being exceeded by the industry. They found the science; they found the dollars. It was done, and because of it, Howe Sound was cleaned up. Because of it, we had heron's eggs hatching in certain areas of the province where they hadn't hatched for years -- a significant impact that was demonstrated in the State of the Environment Report for British Columbia.
The message is that you look industry in the eye and say: "These are the regulations, and we expect you to comply." We're not about to tolerate the dumping of vehicles from California into British Columbia because they don't comply with the toughest standards in North America; we're prepared to introduce the toughest standards in North America to make sure that we solve our air problem.
For those of you on the opposite side who say, "Well, I don't know if we can achieve this technology; I don't know if it's going to be affordable," I'll tell you what I do know. I know, through the GVRD study that was tabled May 2, that if we proceed with these regulations and changes, over time 33,000 fewer people will make emergency visits to hospitals due to respiratory problems. There's a social cost-benefit to government involved: 2,800 premature deaths would be prevented, and $74 million in crop damage in the Fraser Valley would be prevented. There are health and environmental problems.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, hon. member from the Reform Party, it's not a couple of blueberries. If that's the attitude you take,
[ Page 11819 ]
I think that speaks volumes in terms of the lack of commitment you and your colleagues have with regard to the environment.
The regulations aren't here because I made a commitment. First of all, I'm amazed that the opposition, particularly those on the Reform side with a little bit more experience, would stand in this House and say: "The regulations aren't here. We need to see the regulations." They know full well that government introduces legislation every day without regulations. The exception to the rule has been the Environmental Assessment Act. In any event, I have made it very clear that we will be introducing regulations. We need the legislation first. After that, I said very clearly that we will work with industry toward the development of subsequent regulations. I hope, should this House support this legislation, I will have the first set of regulations in place later on this month to deal with the problem that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised -- namely, the matter of sulphur content in diesel fuels, clearly a significant problem and one which I think we can move on right away.
There are those in this debate who assumed that when I talked about zero emissions by the year 1998, those kinds of objectives, which are set in California, will only be achieved by electric vehicles. Well, it's not true. There are other technologies, and certainly through the introduction of this legislation, we give assistance to those other technologies that are similar to the hydrogen fuel cell. I acknowledge that the previous administration did do work in terms of supporting Ballard, and I commend them for that. We've continued that work, because I think we both agree that in that regard that work is both valuable and essential, but I take issue with the Liberal critic for Transportation, who again sees the obstacles and loses sight of the goals when he questions the ability of the Ballard fuel cell to apply to fleets. We know it can apply to transit vehicles; we've seen that. We have taken it to British Columbians and captured their imagination. We have taken it to others in other parts of North America, and they have also seen the future and the future of the Ballard bus. It can be mass-produced, and it can be done in a way that achieves the zero-emission standards in California. There will be remarkable economic development returns to the province.
Now, I am not going to dispense with this legislation, nor is our government, because there may be some difficulties in achieving some of the capacity problems with regard to hydrogen on the Ballard bus. We are going to work with Dr. Ballard and others to deal with those kinds of problems.
We know full well that the range on electric vehicles varies; we know full well that in some instances electric vehicles can only go about 150 kilometres. It is true that there are people in British Columbia -- as there are in California, New York, New Hampshire and everywhere else -- who travel more than 100 miles a day. But it is also true that -- if you take a look at the numbers, and I don't have them here in front of me -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 percent of the people in this province travel less than 150 kilometres per day. It's usually in the range of 60-to-80 kilometres per day. So the vehicles that we're talking about, if the technology is developed, will deal with the areas in which there are problems. Logically....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I just love this argument by the Reform Party. He says: "You shouldn't bring in this law because someone won't be able to drive from Fort Nelson to Prince George." Hon. member, on this side of the House we understand that these vehicles won't deal with the problems for people who travel from Fort Nelson to Prince George. But we don't use that as a reason to avoid our responsibility to deal with the problems in the Fraser Valley and in Vancouver and Victoria. That kind of shallow thinking may explain the lack of vision on the part of the Reform Party, but that shallow thinking isn't found on this side of the House.
It is true that there are problems with recharging batteries in cold atmospheres. The winters are fairly cold in northern New York, Vermont and some of the other jurisdictions in the New England states that are beginning to look at or to embrace these regulations. As we begin to deal with the technology, we are beginning to deal with those issues as well. But I want the hon. member to know that that in itself ought not to be a reason to dispense with this legislation. As I said earlier on, obstacles are things that people see when they lose sight of the overall objectives and goals.
One of the overall objectives is to take a look at ethanol. There are no two ways about it. I think what the hon. members have said about ethanol is correct. I think there are opportunities with regard to ethanol that we aren't taking full advantage of, and that we need to, as a society and as a province. I have no difficulty in recognizing the legitimacy of those arguments, but I'm not going to be deterred by arguments that say that it might cost $100,000 to buy that vehicle. I think we all understand the economics of this situation and fully appreciate that those kinds of costs are prohibitive. But I am not going to give up in our desire to achieve these goals because I'm told by the industry that the costs are prohibitive. I have heard that argument too often on too many other issues, and we are not going to succumb to it in the same fashion that those members from the Reform Party did with regard to pulp mill standards.
[10:45]
We have an obligation to maintain our role as a government that shows environmental leadership in Canada -- number one in Canada in terms of environmental leadership. We're going to do that. Second, we are not going to allow these vehicles to be dumped into our market. Third, we are going to utilize these regulations to develop green industries, which we think in many ways is the future of this province and certainly is one of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy. Fourth and above all, we are not going to betray our responsibilities to those that are impacted by the negative health impacts of these vehicles and by certain auto emissions.
With that said, hon. Speaker, I call the question.
The Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 35, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 42 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Blencoe |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Stephens |
Hurd |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Chisholm |
Tanner |
|
Anderson |
M. de Jong |
Symons |
|
Boone |
Hartley |
Lali |
|
Schreck |
Copping |
Kasper |
|
NAYS -- 2 | ||
|
Neufeld |
|
Weisgerber |
[ Page 11820 ]
Bill 35, Waste Management 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. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 28.
LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. M. Sihota: This legislation is long overdue. It really is a tribute to organizations like Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Trust of British Columbia and many conservation groups around the province who have long recognized that many who live in this province, before they dispose of lands that they own either because of age or because they just want to move on, would like to make sure that the conservation quality of the lands is protected forever.
Many privately held lands in British Columbia are special lands, such as wetlands, land for cariboo migration, lands which need to have barns maintained because of the need to have a place for barn owls, lands that are adjacent to sensitive marine shores and lands which are part of the migratory pattern as birds move up from California to Alaska -- a natural stopping-off and feeding ground for birds.
Many British Columbians have felt that before they dispense of their lands, they should be able to place a covenant on their lands that would allow those kinds of uses to occur, so as not to adversely impact on wildlife and habitat in the province. For many years, organizations that are involved in the conservation movement in British Columbia have encouraged government to proceed with this type of legislation. There's a benefit to all in the sense that on the one hand, government itself will not have to acquire private lands and will therefore save with regard to land acquisition; and on the other hand, by placing these types of covenants on land, there is protection for wildlife and habitat in the province.
Accordingly, I think this legislation is sound public policy and long overdue. I would commend it to this House for consideration.
M. de Jong: In the previous bill that was before the House, the minister seemed somewhat chagrined by virtue of the fact that the official opposition was able to lend support to the government. In this particular case, I am not able at this point to offer him a similar endorsation, and I will say so. Quite simply, quite quickly and quite briefly, the difficulty with the legislation arises out of the fact that it purports to grant to the minister some pretty absolute and wide-ranging discretion.
The brief remarks that the minister has made, even now, go some way to allaying some of the fears that we may have on this side of the House. I'm hopeful that at committee stage the minister will be able to offer additional information that will enable the official opposition to lend support to this legislative initiative and amendment to the Land Title Act. That information is not before us now, so we don't feel that we're in a position to offer that agreement in principle.
There are questions, when one is purporting to grant such wide-ranging discretion to the minister, about his or her intentions vis-a-vis who is to be designated by the minister as being competent to grant or to receive the covenants contemplated, and that is something we will canvass at committee stage. The legislation also purports to enable the granting of covenants in favour of corporations and societies, and some of the questions we will have will focus on the impact of a society or corporation changing its objectives midstream, which the minister knows is something that could happen. How would this legislation respond to circumstances arising such as that, where a covenant has been granted in favour of a particular organization? He mentioned a few well-known environmental organizations. If those legal entities are to subsequently change their objectives, which they clearly would be entitled to do, what impact does that have on granting the original covenant? That is something that causes concern, and those are issues that we will want to canvass.
I should also say that one aspect of this proposed legislation that does find immediate favour with the opposition centres around the recognition that changes have to be made to the Assessment Act, and that where such covenants are contemplated and approved, they are properly taken into account by the assessment authorities. That is obviously something that should be included and should proceed at a parallel pace with the other significant change contemplated in the act.
The only other thing I want to alert the minister to -- which I do because I anticipate asking the question -- centres around the potential for the legislation running afoul of any perpetuities rules. The minister will know that it's easy to ask whether a proposed piece of legislation violates any of the rules against perpetuities. I will candidly admit that I'm not certain that I understand the rule of perpetuities as it might apply to this legislation. But it is something that's been brought to my attention and that perhaps he could canvass with his staff.
R. Neufeld: I'll keep in mind that the hour is late, as you spoke about before, hon. Speaker.
This bill allows non-government organizations to enter into covenants with property owners to have those covenants entered onto the title of their property in the land registry. To the extent that it does this, it is a good bill that helps facilitate private property solutions to environmental problems. Groups that buy property rights and have those rights registered can be trusted to enforce those rights against anyone who tries to interfere with them or ignore them. Citizens have trusted and can trust organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and Ducks Unlimited which have become the most successful environmental organizations in the world by purchasing property rights and using that property to preserve ecosystems that they feel are important to protect.
With those few words, the Reform caucus stands in support of this legislation and looks forward to the section-by-section debate.
J. Tyabji: I made a number of comments about this bill when we were discussing the Municipal Amendment Act, 1994, earlier tonight. As I said in that debate, we can't look at this bill in isolation from the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, which is before us in committee stage. I don't understand why the Liberals support the consequential amendment to the Assessment Act that is in here. In the debate under the heritage amendment act we were in strong opposition to the fact that a heritage designation -- which could increase assessments, especially as the Assessment Authority is currently constituted -- could end up being imposed on someone's private property. They would pay higher property taxes, the Assessment Authority would take that heritage conservation into
[ Page 11821 ]
account when assessing the property, and the person would not be in control of a situation in which they end up paying higher taxes. That's something the Alliance members were fighting with the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
There are some problems with this Land Title Amendment Act, 1994, in that the definition of "amenity" is almost global. It is very much the same language as the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, which the Alliance members have been opposing in committee stage. I suppose it is not a surprise that the Liberals have been supporting the government in that, but we in the Alliance have a problem, because we are seeing a dramatic change in property rights through this bill, through the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, and through the Municipal Act amendments -- not just this year, but last year.
[11:00]
This bill is basically allowing the designation made under Bill 21 to come into force under the land title registry. To that end, we have a real problem. The other thing we have a problem with is that when we start to talk about covenants, we recognize that the definition of who is going to be eligible and deemed to be able to have a covenant includes someone designated by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on terms and conditions deemed to be proper. That's where we see a lot of ministerial discretion. When we include this minister's discretion under this act with the Minister of Culture's discretion under Bill 21, we have a situation where there is a dramatic change to property rights.
It's interesting that when we talk about a specified amenity, we know that's going to be done by regulation. We don't have any idea of what the specified amenity will be. If we look at the definition of amenity and cross-reference it with Bill 21, we see that there are going to be some serious problems for people in terms of having any self-determination of their own property. We have a real problem with that.
The "Transitional: covenants" section says it all with respect to how this act, in concert with the other acts of this government, is dramatically changing things. It will be very interesting to see how the changes this government is bringing about with regard to property rights end up being cross-referenced with the changes by the government that we're seeing in our educational system, to restructure society without society really having any input. The government does not have a mandate to do this. This was not part of the platform; this is not something the people of B.C. have been asking for and this is not something the Alliance members can support.
We look forward to committee stage on this, because in committee stage we can start to find out what kind of regulation will go with the specified amenities and whether this minister has given adequate consideration to the rights of the people who own the property. In the earlier debate we were talking about the disposal of public property; in this debate we're talking specifically about private property rights. Although public property is not excluded from that, it's clearly private property rights that we're dealing with.
I don't know how the government, without a mandate and without some kind of consultation process, can so quietly be making such dramatic changes to property rights as it is making now. By the time people realize what's being done to our social structure and our property rights, it will be much too late. That's unfortunate.
Hon. M. Sihota: A number of legitimate points were made during this debate. I will cover them off during committee stage, particularly the concerns expressed in relation to powers vested in the minister and some of the discretions. There are some fairly logical explanations for that and some process that we have to apply, in relation to my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture, to make sure other values are respected -- for example, lands in the agricultural land reserve and the way in which they may conflict with or reinforce some of the provisions under this legislation. I think those matters are best dealt with at committee stage, but they are appropriate concerns and, certainly, matters we had to wrestle with. There wasn't too much I heard in the second reading debate that didn't come up in our discussions; hence I think we should be able to answer most of the concerns that hon. members have. With that said, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 28, Land Title 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, with regard to Committee A, I would suggest to hon. members that the debate be deferred until tomorrow.
The Speaker: That has been, by agreement, so ordered.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:37 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 21: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
L. Stephens: When we broke last week we were talking about capital funding. I want to continue along the line of capital funding -- there are very few questions left on that -- then proceed to the Skills Now program, beginning at page 88 of the estimates, under schools funding, and working our way through that. Once we've finished with matters relating to schools funding, we'll go on to educational programs and look at curriculum, standards and assessments, and so on. That's how we're going to proceed. Hopefully we'll be done by the end of the day, if that's agreeable to everyone; I'm sure it is.
There was discussion of a five-year plan for schools funding. There was a request, I believe by the districts, that something along those lines be put in place. I wonder if the
[ Page 11822 ]
minister would comment on whether or not we'll be seeing a schedule -- like a five-year plan -- coming up for school districts this year and the following. I know there's the three-year capital funding cash flow -- whether that's going to form part of a multi-year funding formula or not.... Could the minister expand a little on the request for a five-year plan and how that three-year cash flow may work into it, if indeed it does?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The five-year plan on capital has been in place for some time. There has never been, nor will there be now, a fixed commitment to reach out five years on a capital plan basis, but it is a useful exercise for any organization to look a number of years ahead and to plan for it as part of their annual capital plan. It gives the ministry information about where the pressures are for the coming years. All of these will be reviewed as part of the overall fiscal funding review that is underway, and I expect that report in late summer.
L. Stephens: As the minister knows, there is that five-year plan, but districts have to come back to the ministry every year in order to get their allotted funding. There's still a lot of distress over whether they're going to get what they have asked for. I wonder if the minister is thinking about having a committed percentage of funding for each year with a separate discretionary category where districts would get committed funding for the next three years without having to come back to the ministry every single year. The discretionary allotment would be given if the ability to fund more is there, and the districts would know that they have X dollars to spend in a three-year or five-year period. Would that be something the minister would consider?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I would not support that in anything other than a notional funding manner. I don't believe future Treasury Boards should be fettered at all in determining where scarce resources need to be allocated. I think all school boards recognize that when they put in their five-year plan, that plan is painted in very broad strokes. They like to have as much certainty as possible in their lives -- just as we do -- but realistically I believe the year-by-year capital funding, with conceivably a notional envelope for the coming year, is about as far as I would want to go in giving assurances on the capital side.
L. Stephens: When the announcement about the funding levels and the changes in the reporting in the new accounting manuals went out, the ministry indicated to the boards that there would be services made available to the different districts that would like to avail themselves of them. Has the ministry had requests for that service? If they have, how many? What cost has it been to the ministry to go to these districts to help with implementation of this new accounting procedure?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I made an offer to all boards. If, in formulating their budget and meeting the challenges of the targeted funding, they thought they could utilize some skills provided by the ministry, I offered a review team at no cost to come to that district and lend a hand -- not to make decisions for them, but to give advice and make suggestions. There has only been one formal study done, following a request from Nanaimo. A ministry team went in and lent them a hand in a significant way and reported back. There are perhaps ten or a dozen other districts where informal discussion and meetings with members of the ministry staff have been going on.
[2:45]
L. Stephens: Who were on the team that went to Nanaimo? Does the ministry have a cost grid of how much it cost to send this group, team or whatever it was to Nanaimo?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The team that went to Nanaimo consisted of two ministry staff headed by Oscar Bedard. On that team as well were Norm Thiessen and one external consultant, Peter Boyle. The cost of the exercise was in the $20,000-to-$30,000 range.
L. Stephens: In what capacity was external member Peter Boyle there?
C. Morton: Peter Boyle is currently a management consultant. He's formerly a secretary-treasurer and has worked at a number of school districts around the province. He does a lot of consulting work for school districts in the restructuring agenda, and he was quite welcomed by the Nanaimo board for his expertise.
L. Stephens: I have a couple of other questions about independent schools and their funding. Would the minister expand a bit on the individual schools and their grants? I would also like to know whether they will remain or increase, particularly in regard to the loss of their $3 million special education supplementary and the $1 million in targeted grants. Is the ministry contemplating making any changes there?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the first part of your question, concerning general aid to independent schools, we have two categories that we partially fund. Group one includes those independent schools expending no more than the average public school per FTE in a district, and those are funded 50 cents on the dollar. They have to meet our curriculum as well, and all teachers have to be certified. If they meet our curriculum and have certified teachers, but they expend more than the district average per FTE, the funding drops to 35 percent. There is no other funding to independent schools now except for those two categories. That funding level was maintained at the same level in this budget as in the previous budget. As for any future changes, that is a matter for a future Treasury Board to deal with.
With respect to your question of lost money, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Independent schools did not participate in certain grants to public schools, but that is not a change. With respect to the larger grant that I established this year for severe behavioural problems, independent schools in fact received -- although they technically might not have expected to receive any of it -- about $200,000 to address that problem.
L. Stephens: In last year's budget the independent schools lost $3 million in special education supplementary grants and another $1 million in targeted grants. Aside from the $200,000 for severe behavioural problems, which has been added to the category of special needs students, will some of that funding in the new announcements for special needs be available to independent schools, over and above that $200,000?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I do not understand your statement about a grant that the independent schools lost. Last year I put in an extra grant of $3 million for public
[ Page 11823 ]
schools for training and professional development of teachers and training of teacher assistants with respect to instruction of special needs children. Independent schools did not share in that grant, but nothing was taken from them. They did not lose any funds; they simply did not participate in some additional funds.
L. Stephens: Under the previous minister there was a loss of $3 million in special education supplementary grants and another $1 million in targeted grants to the independent schools. It continues to disturb the independent school organization. They are looking for some relief from the very difficult special education problems that both public and independent schools experience. Is there nothing over and above the $200,000 which the minister just mentioned will be going to the independent schools, in relation to special education supplement grants?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If there was a reduction in a grant of some $3 million during the tenure of the previous minister, I'm not directly familiar with it. I'll take that portion of your question on notice and get back to you as quickly as I can with some factual information.
L. Stephens: Thank you very much. I would indeed like to get that information.
We'll move on to the Skills Now initiative that was introduced and announced. Could the minister broadly discuss this program, particularly in relation to cost?
The member for Prince George-Omineca would like to finish a few questions on capital funding before we move on, if that's agreeable.
L. Fox: I thank the member for Langley for again giving me the opportunity to take my place in these debates.
On the issue of capital funding, the minister is well aware that there is concern in the northern part of the province that the north has not received its fair share with respect to capital spending on schools in these 1993-94 allocations. I'd like to ask a couple of questions about this.
First, in terms of spending on capital projects this year, what was the announced total? I have a press release, but I wasn't able to dig it up prior to coming here today.
Second, what percentage of that is new money and what percentage is an increment that was in the plan to be spent this year and approved in previous years?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The number you are probably thinking of was the envelope of about $340 million. I think you said 1993-94, but I think you meant 1994-95.
L. Fox: Sorry, right.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the question of whether the north was treated fairly, I believe, as a hinterland member myself, that the north was and the hinterland was. The problem is the extremely uneven enrolment pressures. If you draw a line roughly across the province through Cache Creek in the interior and add up the enrolment growth south of that line -- that would include central Okanagan, for example -- the projected enrolment growth in the coming year is just under 10,000 students -- 9,700.
If you take all the districts north of that line, the total enrolment growth is negative 225. As for the priority list I drew up, given that we had limited funds, the $340 million was not nearly as much as I would have liked to have had. I asked staff to prepare a list that dealt primarily, almost exclusively, with providing additional capacity as opposed to doing replacement projects or major reno projects. So in terms of additional capacity required, it is very heavily driven by enrolment growth and by existing enrolment pressures in terms of overcrowding of school sites and the number of portables, for example, on school sites. On that basis, I believe a scrupulously fair job was done in allocating the money.
My own district did not get a project out of that process -- School District 24 -- nor did many northern districts that are experiencing either flat or declining enrolment. There are many schools in the north and in the interior that are in need of replacement. They're older schools. Some of them are 50 years old and getting a little worn around the edges. If I had had additional funds to do replacement projects, we certainly would have seen a number from the north come onto the list. But with respect to the amount I had and how the projects were allocated, it was a very fair process.
L. Fox: Of the $340 million that was allocated for spending this year, how much is in fact an increment of a project that was approved and budgeted for last year, and how much of it is new dollars for new schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is all new dollars. You're asking if some of those new dollars are carry-on commitments from earlier years. If they started at a school last year, they're going to complete it this year. Some of them were totally new projects that we are now going to consider for approval.
[3:00]
Of course, a large number of minor projects, upon being announced, are immediately approved to proceed. We are proceeding on about 150 new minor projects and about 60 new major projects. I can't give you the precise breakdown in dollars offhand, but I could provide you with that information.
L. Fox: With respect to my two districts, perhaps I can ask the question differently. The allocation to School District 56, given to me by your ministry, indicates major completion of Sowchea Elementary School, at $2.123 million. Is that included in your $340 million estimate? This project was started in previous years.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This would be an example of a school that was approved in a prior year's envelope, with funds committed from a prior year's envelope. Some of the cash might have flowed the first year of the envelope; some of the cash will flow this year. But of the $340 million that I mention in this year's envelope, all those projects are new; roughly 150 were minor projects and 60 were major projects.
We have served notice to all school boards where those projects are that they are to proceed immediately on all the minors. On the major projects, after they complete their final design and whatever other elements, they come back to us for final approval to actually tender. But the $340 million represents a new envelope. Some of the money being spent this year actually represents projects from older envelopes.
L. Fox: I'm not aware the ministry set up any reserve in terms of past commitments for capital construction to be funded on a year-to-year basis out of your ministry's budget, up until B.C. 21 kicked in. I'm not sure how that's going to work with respect to older projects; it probably doesn't play a part. How much more commitment is there in terms of these uncompleted capital projects identified within this year's budget beyond $340 million? If that is all for
[ Page 11824 ]
brand-new projects and brand-new money, what is your ministry's additional commitment for the ongoing projects which have a liability and for which money has not yet been paid by the ministry?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the budget process, Treasury Board will make an estimate of what funds are needed to meet obligations in any given fiscal year. Those numbers were considered in this process. When a project has been announced a year, two years or even three years ago, we knew it would be an ongoing project, and we allowed for whatever commitment required for completion. As new projects proceed to the point of actual spade in the ground -- contract let, cash flow -- we allow for that as well. We do not know precisely how cash will flow from any of the envelopes; we can make estimates, and the grand total is what the government allows for the year.
L. Fox: That's a long answer without any substance. The minister is trying to tell us that the $340 million is for brand-new committed space in 1994-95. I'm aware of ongoing projects that were started prior to 1994-95, with commitments that would have led into this year. If, in fact, some of those commitments are not contained within the $340 million, what is the amount of those commitments in capital funds to complete the projects that were started in previous years?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount in the estimates for that purpose is $417 million. That will cover liability, so to speak, of projects underway and allow for new projects to clear their final hurdles of design, site acquisition and everything else in order to get started. We know that not all projects we are prepared to approve will actually start. We don't know precisely which ones at the outset of the year but we have allowed that some will start. The $417 million covers not only our ongoing obligations for construction underway, but also an estimate of what new projects might start and what tasks will be required for those.
L. Fox: We can take from the minister's statement that this year's actual total cash outflow is estimated at $417 million to meet the capital projects at whatever stage they're going to be during this fiscal year. I'm trying to understand this process so I can be accountable when I answer my constituents' concerns.
One question that comes to mind, given the new structure for capital funding, is whether this $340 million will now be set aside as a legitimate reserve of capital for ongoing projects? Given the understanding that it may take three years to meet the completion of today's projects, are we once again going to see part of this $340 million used next year in the announcement for spending? The public, as do I, have great difficulty in sorting out what is new money in terms of actual new space and what is ongoing in meeting the programs and commitments of the previous year. I think the suspicion is, at least from my constituency, that much of the money announced in this $340 million is going to meet school construction that was in process in previous years and not really new classrooms.
A case has been built regarding one school somewhere in the lower mainland -- and the name escapes me at this point in time -- that burned down. However, you've announced the replacement spaces as new spaces within this funding; at least that's the perception the public has. I'm trying to sort out how we're going to see whether we truly are getting fair and equal treatment in capital spending.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: One of the most accurate ways of determining the commitment is to look at the number of new spaces that actually come on stream each year. There will be 12,000 or 13,000 that will come on stream this September, another 12,000 or 13,000 next September and another 12,000 or 13,000 the following September. The schools are being constructed, and the commitment is being made.
I'm going to just go over the scenario once again, and I hope to convince you that the $340 million is real money. Let us say that a $20 million project for a senior secondary is approved out of this $340 million. Only $2 million of that may flow this year, but once it's in an envelope and once it has received its final approval, there will follow $10 million perhaps next year and $8 million the following year to complete the project. When the Treasury Board's process starts up in the fall, and the capital borrowing requirements and everything are being considered, the fact that we're going to have to borrow $10 million to carry on the construction of that school in the next fiscal year will be recognized, and it will be recognized again in the following fiscal year.
Part of the confusion that has occurred here is that there were projects in last fiscal year's envelope that never received final approval for a whole variety of reasons. With some of them, there were site acquisition problems or other site problems. In other instances, designs hadn't proceeded or facility studies hadn't been completed. In some instances, fiscal constraints explain why they didn't proceed -- we were trying to limit the total debt exposure of the government. Whatever project was not proceeded with remains a high priority, of course, with the districts. We recognize that and we also recognize the new high priorities that districts have, and we melded those together into one list. We then looked at the priorities on that list, ranking them for urgency on the basis of enrolment pressure, and we picked about $340 million worth of projects to go into this year's capital envelope. Out of that $340 million, maybe only $50 million or $60 million or $100 million -- I don't know for sure -- will flow during this present fiscal year, but our commitments from the previous two fiscal years are all together going to be about $470 million. If I'm not being very clear, please ask for clarification, and I'll try to address your specific point.
L. Fox: I think I do understand it, but it's unfortunate that it has to work that way. If I understand it correctly, the $340 million announcement is the estimated cost of all projects completed. In the minister's own words, the estimated actual expenditure on those projects in this current year could be something around $50 million, but there are ongoing commitments of the ministry that total $470 million, which does, indeed, make it rather complex.
[3:15]
If you took the politics out of the equation and looked at straight financing and bookkeeping, one could state that this year's capital expenditures would be $50 million to $60 million, with a commitment of $340 million in ongoing years. This would be a lot easier for the average person to understand, and I certainly consider myself in that.
There are a couple of reasons I'm concerned about the capital expenditure, and part of it has to do with the rising costs of maintenance in some of the older buildings. I know that the technical distribution group made some recommendations with respect to how we might deal with funding for ground and building maintenance, and those recommendations were not very favourable to rural school districts. I haven't heard any comment from the ministry on the recommendations made by that technical group. Would
[ Page 11825 ]
the minister tell me what the present status is of those recommendations? Have any of those recommendations been accepted by the ministry?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When the technical distribution group report came in and made recommendations that certain districts were in effect being overfunded and certain ones underfunded, the cleavage was quite clear between rural and urban districts. The rural districts, of course, didn't hesitate to contact me promptly to say that they disagreed with the analysis of the technical distribution group. It had to do with things like snow removal from roofs and parking lots and a lot of other issues related to inclement weather.
In looking at the technical distribution group, I was already of a mind to set its recommendations aside entirely, because I deemed that it was tinkering with the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework just doesn't work. It is impenetrable to members of the public if they try to figure out exactly what it means, so by the time the technical distribution group came in, I was of a mind to replace it rather than tinker with it. I set aside the recommendations. I did not follow through on the recommendation of the technical distribution group to take away $15 million from rural districts and increase funding by $15 million to the urban districts, but at the same time, I recognized that urban districts had some unique problems to deal with that the fiscal framework didn't recognize. That's when I established that $8 million growth community fund and distributed it to those districts that were, for the most part, facing extraordinary growth pressures. That left all of the rural, northern and hinterland districts whole with respect to their funding. and it gave at least some level of relief to the fast-growing urban districts.
With respect to your question about the technical distribution group, I have set aside the entire thing with all of its recommendations. We are in the process of designing a new distribution model, and we are revisiting all the issues, including, for example, some of the issues related to snow in the northern and rural districts.
F. Gingell: I came in while they were in the middle of the discussion about capital funding, which was a question I had intended to raise myself. I don't want to regurgitate the matters that have been discussed, but from what I have heard and what I understand -- and I would like you to please correct me if I'm wrong -- you anticipate spending $470 million on capital projects in 1994-95. You estimate that $50 million or $60 million of that will be the first portion for getting started on the $340 million worth of new projects that have been announced for this year. Do I then take it that as of April 1, 1994, about $420 million worth of projects that had been approved in all the years prior to April 1, 1994, were in progress or pending start-up -- getting finalization of drawings or site acquisition plans?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's essentially correct. About $417 million was the anticipated cash-flow requirement for so-called active projects. It's an estimate. It can vary from that, but that was the estimate.
F. Gingell: So $417 million is the total amount of all those projects not completed and sitting on your books in some form at April 1, 1994? How much of those projects do you expect to pay out? Do you expect the whole $417 million will actually be spent in 1994-95?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We anticipate that something close to $417 million will be spent on active projects. You're right; some of them date back one year, two years or three years. Some projects that dated back two and three years were not yet active because final designs weren't complete or something was holding up a project. I actually asked school boards if they wanted to consider cancelling those ancient projects....
L. Fox: Good luck.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, many chose to cancel and to substitute a new, higher-priority project. There were approved active projects, but there were also approved passive projects where something was still in the way of the project. We didn't know if that impediment would be cleared this year, so they were not counted.
F. Gingell: So, if you were to take every single file and add up the gross amount of them, you would in fact come to something that was substantially greater than $417 million, because in this year's expenditures, a 1992-93 project that is just getting started will still have expenditures in 1995-96 and 1996-97, and those amounts were not included in the $417 million. Do you have that number? I appreciate that the minute a school board came back to you and said they wanted to replace project 175 with project 186, you would then cross out 175 -- at least, if you agree to do it. Do you have any number for the backlog at April 1? That's really the number I was trying to get a grip on.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total value of projects approved -- and virtually all of them underway -- is in the order of $1.2 billion. There are 417 about to flow this year and an additional large amount to flow in the next two years to complete all of those active projects. The 340 in this capital envelope goes in addition to that.
F. Gingell: Just to recap and make sure I've got it right, you started with approximately $1.2 billion worth of projects at the start of the year, approved in various stages. You've now added $340 million of new projects, bringing us up to $1.54 billion. You expect to spend about $470 million in this current year on that $1.54 billion worth of projects. So at April 1, 1995, there will be approximately $1.13 billion worth of projects sitting there, generally. Thank you.
I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether they've given any thought to a different pattern for the school year -- like 45-15 or some other semester type of program, which may cut down the need for some of the additional space.
When I was chairman of the Delta School Board and we were the fastest-growing district, we became concerned that we might be building schools that would subsequently not be needed. We tried to get a continuous school year project going. We in fact sent officials to St. Louis, Missouri, and down to California to see what was being done there. We would certainly have brought in a project had we gotten the support of the parents and teachers. Now, 20 years later, it's clear that we did build one or two elementary schools that perhaps in the long term haven't been needed. I wonder if you'd like to comment on that issue.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The matter of year-round schooling and the potential for saving money caught my eye a number of months ago. Shortly after that, I saw that Calgary was indeed going ahead with a pilot on some
[ Page 11826 ]
year-round schools. After a very exhaustive process of consultation with the community, a couple of schools are going to try what's called a five-track system, where they have a common three-week holiday in the summer and a common ten-day holiday at Christmas. Then they're on, I believe, a 60-day-on, 15-day-off cycle, staggered for five different tracks.
[3:30]
I have been talking about that quite a bit in public in order to provoke some discussion of it. Indeed, a fair amount of discussion has followed. Ten or so school boards have already indicated an interest in a possible pilot. We've communicated with superintendents, and I will shortly be communicating with boards on this issue. It is my understanding that a five-track system, for example, would increase the enrolment capacity of a high school by about 25 percent, which is far more effective use of valuable public buildings. I want to encourage school boards to consider that seriously. We would have to do it carefully, but I would like to choose a number of pilots in different areas. We have one school going on year-round now outside Williams Lake. Because of the nature of the forest industry, they operate in a different way: they run through the summer, but, as I recall, they have some time off during breakup and freeze-up. They have found it to be quite successful, and it's popular in their community. Any time we have an opportunity to see an expansion of 25 percent, that must be investigated, because it has the potential of saving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money and avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-supported debt.
F. Gingell: We were talking about elementary schools at that time, and we were talking about a staggered 45-15 program. I'd like to ask the minister to give the committee some assurance that he will look at the benefits that can be obtained from building-cost viewpoints -- both capital and operating, because they are fairly readily measurable, and 45-15 actually gives you a 331/3 percent greater capacity. During the course of our work, we also became convinced that there were substantial educational benefits to be gained. Children who were having difficulty in a particular grade had the ability to be slipped back three, six or nine weeks rather than repeat the whole grade. They can repeat certain portions of their program, particularly if they've been off sick. They don't suddenly come back into a classroom and find they are three, four or five weeks behind. I would like you to show us that you will look at the educational values and opportunities that can be gathered with this same kind of program.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am quite pleased to give the member assurances that the educational value of it will be considered. In the way our schools are set up now, it is indeed a problem for children have who have just missed the passing mark, because it is almost a year before they are exposed to that material again. Their knowledge, of course, has meantime degraded. It is better by far for them to slip a track and go back in to take the course over again right at that point. I believe there are potential benefits from primary through secondary grades with this. There is also some indication that the operating costs on a per-FTE basis are marginally lower. There is not a great saving on the operating side, but there may be some educational benefits and some very significant avoidance of capital cost issues. Then, too, there is the matter of convenience to many of our families who choose, for example, to vacation at different times of the year. Rather than having to take their children out of school to do that, they would be able to put them in a track that permits them all to take their vacation without impeding their education. For a whole variety of reasons, I intend to look very seriously at year-round schooling.
R. Kasper: I have a couple of questions concerning cash-flow problems the ministry has encountered in regard to boards not proceeding with previously approved capital projects in a timely fashion. What steps is the ministry taking in regard to previously approved projects that have not proceeded in a timely fashion due to design drawings, approvals, rezoning or what have you? And what steps is the ministry taking to make sure that this does not occur in the future?
The minister mentioned earlier that even though there was a capital allocation this year of some $340 million, the actual amount being spent during this budget year could be as high as $470 million. To my mind, that puts the funding out of sync with what was actually approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Because of the way the funding system works, quite often there's little correlation between the capital and the envelope, and it can go either way, frankly. What was happening up to a couple of years ago was that projects were being approved when the designs had not yet been undertaken, so that $22 million or whatever would be notionally tied up and on the books as a commitment to some high school when the design and sometimes even the site didn't exist. It would sit on the books, gumming them up, for an inordinate number of years.
We have changed some of the approval procedures so that site approval is a project in itself, planning is a project in itself, and finally we have completion. That gives Treasury Board more control over the actual cash-flow requirements of the province, which is good, but it also means that we don't have huge, unexpended commitments hanging out there.
We did indeed have some projects in some districts -- and I will name them -- that were approved as many as three budgets back and that were still on the books unexpended. I allowed districts to look at those and decide whether they were going to proceed on them. In many instances they chose to cancel a project because circumstances had changed, and they now had new and higher priorities. I've allowed them to reallocate the funds that would otherwise have been tied up.
From time to time we will no doubt still face a situation where, despite the best of intentions and design, a project is approved but does not start when we anticipate. I think we have to accept that happening on occasion.
R. Kasper: Has the ministry identified projects that have been previously approved and will go absolutely nowhere, in terms of both minor and major capital? What steps has the ministry taken to take those previously approved funds and put them back into the pool?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take the easier side of it first, on minor projects. If they don't get a minor project underway within 18 months, the money is pulled back as a matter of policy.
On major projects, a little more leeway has to be given. In some instances, an unforeseeable site problem may have been uncovered in the course of a geotechnical investigation, or an environmental problem could have arisen. If the delay occurs for a very good reason, we may allow that approved project to carry on in the books. But if there is no good reason, we then approach the district and expect them to
[ Page 11827 ]
work with us in solving whatever the problems are in getting on with it. Otherwise, we can pull that money back as well.
R. Kasper: What about the second part of my question, as far as projects that haven't been approved? What I would like to know, as a follow-up to that, is: how much money has been identified for those types of projects that are going absolutely nowhere? What would happen with those dollars? Do they go back in the pool as far as cash flow? If they were approved and aren't going anywhere, then what happens to that allocation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If a project, having been approved, then turns around and, in the member's language "is going nowhere," and the board recognizes that, they can turn the money back. It goes back into the pool and could be used elsewhere.
If it reaches a point where the ministry would have to "unapprove" the project and pull it back, the project might pop up again and be considered at a later date on a provincewide priority basis. Having lost their position, they would have to regain it. In almost all instances, we would work with the board to try to resolve the problem and get the project on track. But if that was not possible, we would pull the funds back. They may pop up again in that capital envelope that year, but they may simply be pulled back and the project indefinitely deferred.
R. Kasper: Further to that, what criteria would the ministry use as far as the reallocation of those funds or the approval of a secondary project that the board has identified? Would it be based on the same criteria and priorities that the ministry had used in allocating funding for projects in previous funding envelope years? Or would it be allocated on this year's priorities, as identified by the ministry? The creation of new spaces and new schools is deemed to be the priority, not the outright replacement of existing buildings or existing spaces with new structures. So what would it be based on?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally speaking, if the money were to be pulled back by the province, or a project turned back by the district, the extra funds would go back into the general pool to be reallocated in accordance with existing priorities.
This time around, when I allowed districts to reassess their own immediate priorities with a view toward cancelling some approved projects in their district, I allowed them to substitute new projects in their district only if they were high priority, and some districts chose to do that.
[3:45]
R. Kasper: My last question is in regard to School District 62. The district had previous approvals for planning and engineering work, and it spent some $900,000 in regard to the replacement of Edward Milne Community School. When they received their original approval for planning and design work, it was given on the basis that the school would, in fact, have an addition to the existing school. But the school board and the ministry determined that it was not economically feasible or in the taxpayers' best interests to put an addition onto a fairly old school, so they agreed that additional planning money should be allocated for that project.
Having originally made a fairly conscious decision to save the taxpayers' money, the school district now finds itself in the position of being penalized in this year's funding envelope because they had taken the steps to initiate the design of a brand-new school to replace an existing school. The project was not approved because it did not meet the criteria established by the ministry -- i.e., creating brand-new spaces, not replacing existing spaces with a brand-new structure. In light of the fact that the school district took a very conscious approach with the ministry in identifying that an addition on an existing structure would be a major drain to the taxpayers and would not be cost-beneficial, it's my hope that the ministry would take that into account when Treasury Board revisits the whole question of future capital allocation for the remainder of the year, hopefully in September. I would appreciate a commitment by the minister on this.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In School District 62, the capital plan that has been approved is the David Cameron Elementary one for almost $6.7 million, plus a minor project. At this point in time, the district has accepted that as the proposed project and hasn't come back to argue a variance of that. I do recognize your point. You're saying that at an earlier point in time, they stepped out of line for good reasons and that now that they have their ducks in a row, so to speak, their request was unable to be entertained this year. That is true of quite a few other worthy projects around the province that were delayed for whatever reason and now find that they did not get funded if they were strictly a replacement or a renovation project. Certainly the needs of School District 62 will be fully considered in the next budget process, and I'm sure that they will submit that project if it is a new high priority in their new capital plan. Depending on what Treasury Board grants for capital next year, we would consider that along with all other projects on a revised priority list.
L. Fox: Just a couple of follow-up questions on capital. I'm sure the minister didn't mean it, but he suggested that they would receive the funds back from the school districts. Of course, the school districts don't get funds; all they get is the approval to spend. As I understand the process, the funds come in incremental payments as they are demanded. If I'm wrong on that, perhaps the minister could straighten me out.
There are a couple of things I request of the minister. I don't expect him to respond today, but I would like to have a list of the $1.2 billion ongoing projects that are happening and are committed from previous years, as well as a list of the $340 million announcement made for requests this year. I can compile that information and then will be prepared next year to monitor how well the dollars have flowed and been spent. If possible, I would appreciate getting that information.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd be pleased to provide the member opposite with a volume. There are about 1,900 ongoing projects around the province, which underlines -- exclamation mark -- the dedication of this government to education in British Columbia. I'd be delighted to provide you with page after page showing that dedication.
With respect to the new $340 million and the final projects going into that list, we're just in the process of advising the boards provincewide, because a lot of them have chosen to substitute projects. Boards have put in their capital reserves. Boards that had a number of projects they wished to turn back -- approved projects not yet started -- have been able to take those approvals, add some of their reserve money and obtain approval for a different high-priority project in their district. You're right. We traded approvals for approvals in this process. Finally, when letters go out to all districts
[ Page 11828 ]
advising on minor projects approved, these, as well as major projects approved, will be considered for final approval in this fiscal period. We will provide you with this list.
L. Fox: I want to make a brief statement. I'm not looking for the reams of information the minister alluded to. All I really need is a district-by-district capital commitment that's ongoing and covers the $1.2 billion, as well as a district-by-district line item in terms of the $340 million, once the minister has that. I understand the process he has to go through.
Just one final comment, which I think is in line with the concerns of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. We want to allow within the system the flexibility to allow school boards to reevaluate the priorities that may or may not have formed a particular project, whether minor or small. If we didn't allow this kind of flexibility, I would be afraid that boards might tend to build based on approval rather than what's in the best interest of the taxpayer.
I know most boards wrestle.... I think School District 56 had a similar situation to the one brought up by the member, with respect to whether or not it was in the best interest of the taxpayer to revamp, expand, modify or rebuild Evelyn Dickson Elementary School. They tried to look at what was the best, most feasible and most cost-effective way, even though they had approval at one point of around $2 million to move forward. I think we've got to allow that flexibility and have faith in school boards that they're going to present at the end of the day what's in the best interest of the taxpayer.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I agree, member. The idea that we should always strive to deliver the best-quality education is the overall issue. School boards play a valuable role in that they're closest to the ground. They can see their priorities change and we should, to the maximum degree possible, cooperate in that process. Before the member leaves, I would be delighted to have the member voice his support for a healthy capital construction program in education. For that matter, the member and ex-chair for the very worthy Delta School Board would probably also be willing to add his voice to approval of capital investment in the future lives of our young children.
L. Stephens: I'm sure the minister knows that the position of the official opposition is that there are choices other than increasing taxes to provide for the much-needed capital works in our education system. We all agree that there are other choices.
I'd like to move on to curriculum development. Before I do, I also requested the information that the member for Prince George-Omineca asked for just a few moments ago, and the ministry is in the process of compiling that for me. They did indeed say there were about 1,900 requests, which would fill cabinets and cabinets, so they're in the process of getting it together in a usable form. I just thought I'd let you know that so that you don't reinvent the wheel and go out and ask them for it again. There is already a request in through freedom of information, so we could probably get the same information.
In the area of curriculum, I particularly wanted to talk a little about the Skills Now initiative that was announced. It's my understanding that about $20 million is allocated through the K-to-12 education system, and that $5 million would be available to the districts for this year. There are three aspects to curriculum: how it's designed, how it's taught and how it's learned -- standards that define a basic quality education, and how the ministry ensures that the right curriculum is designed and introduced and how it monitors the effectiveness of that curriculum. I'd first like to ask the minister how that $5 million is going to be distributed to the districts and on what basis it will be allocated.
C. Morton: There is, in fact, $6.5 million allocated this year to the Skills Now initiative, for a total of $19.9 million this year and next for the K-to-12 system. The intention of the ministry is that every district can apply to the K-to-12 Skills Now fund. There is no set formula per district, although a significant criterion will be the degree of enrolment, so obviously the larger the enrolment, the more consideration for increased funding. However, that doesn't necessarily preclude smaller districts coming forward with innovative but higher FTE-cost proposals, such as the Abbotsford tech centre. It is a very innovative approach to providing applied curriculum and linking the K-to-12 system to community colleges, but it's cost is in excess of $1,000 per enrolled student. There is no fixed formula. There is a general rule around $1,000 per student enrolled in a new program, but it's a flexible proposal.
L. Stephens: Does the move to FTE funding in senior secondary schools facilitate this extra funding? Why was the change made to funding senior secondary seats on an FTE basis?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The two issues are not related at all. With respect to FTEs and secondary schools, it was to try to deal with instances where we perhaps have many, many students carrying only one course and others feeling that this was unfair for them to receive full funding when they are enrolled in only one course. If you recall, I responded last Thursday that we've come up with a way of handling this, but that issue is not related in any way to the funding issue for the Skills Now initiative.
[4:00]
Having only about $6.5 million for the coming school year, we're looking as much as possible for innovation this year. We're also looking at those districts that already have something going, which, with a little additional help, could be converted into a pilot that then could be used to expand into adjacent districts. They could become exemplary sites. In the process of distributing that money, we want to have some focusing rather than simply distribute it, say, via an enrolment arrangement to all districts. That would be so unfocused that we don't feel we would derive too much value from it, so we will receive proposals. We will consider the size of districts in evaluating those proposals and will try to bring focus this way, at least in the first year.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
L. Stephens: How will this initiative be integrated into the present school curriculum? Will it be interconnected with the programs already available at some of the schools, and, if so, how is it going to be brought in? Will it be at the expense of other programs? How are you going to fit these additional studies in? There are now going to be 14 courses required for graduation. How are you going to fit the new initiatives into the present curriculum?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've spoken on many occasions in many locations about reforming the curriculum, using it on a higher plane and trying to reshape it and move it a little more toward the applied sector, as opposed to the
[ Page 11829 ]
theoretical. I want to do so in a way that demands equal and very high rigour. That can, of course, apply whether it's a theoretical or an applied curriculum.
An example would be a course known as "Principles of Technology," which includes some aspects of mathematics and some of physics in a course with an emphasis on applied knowledge. I granted $75,000 to a pilot project going on up in Kitimat, where they have at least part of the "Principles of Technology" course in place. Sir Charles Tupper in Vancouver is another example of a school in which "Principles of Technology" is being offered.
The intent is to use these funds to turn the curriculum emphasis, in the broader sense, toward the applied. The experiment that will be going on at Clearbrook technical centre in Clearbrook is a good example of this. The district has come up with a very innovative idea of using an existing but presently unused junior high. A number of courses would be concentrated there dealing with applied technology. Attracted to that school, then, would be children who want a curriculum richer in applied technology. Much of this is about changing the curriculum.
L. Stephens: I'd like to get a clearer picture of how that change may happen. This particular school in Abbotsford is vacant; the programs you're speaking of have been set up there, and for all intents and purposes, it's a free-standing institution to further the applied curriculum. Would the minister consider this in other areas -- free-standing buildings that are funded partially by business, labour and the government to deliver the kinds of applied sciences that are in fact done in other jurisdictions?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In case there is a misunder-standing about the Clearbrook technology centre, I should clarify. That school will teach the provincial curriculum. Some of the technical courses that will be available there will be more toward the applied side in content. In making the shift to apprenticeship preparation, we're also utilizing funds under Skills, Training and Labour. There are apprenticeship-preparation courses available in many districts. A district could choose to apply for money under a job-shadow or work experience program.
We expect and encourage innovative ideas from our partners in the school districts. That will be the $6.5 million this year. We'll carry those programs on again next year and expand them somewhat to the roughly $13.5 or so million next year. Again, I repeat, much of this has to do with -- going back to your original preamble -- a change in content of curriculum. We want to pick up the best ideas that are out there now and build on them where possible, expand the number of career options available to young men and women, and develop the career preparation and the work experience.
L. Stephens: What kind of evaluation will be done to ensure that the provincial courses and programs reflect national or international standards as well as new and emerging vocations? Who will do the evaluation of these developing programs?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Any course taught under this program will have to be evaluated and approved by the ministry. We have districts -- individual schools and teachers -- that have been doing some very innovative work over the past years. There are a lot of partners in education that have realized for some time that an increased technical content and enhanced applied content were desirable or even necessary. Those locally developed programs will have to meet our provincial assessment, and they'll have to get provincial authorization or approval. Then they could be brought in and funded as part of the K-to-12 Skills Now plan.
L. Stephens: I would like to see what kinds of concrete and relevant programs are coming forward. Career prep has been offered in high schools for a number of years. Post-secondary placement and work experience have been there. Schools have been coming up with these things for a number of years. What is substantially different about Skills Now? I appreciate the ministry's and the minister's move to change curriculum to focus on those applied sciences for vocational, technical and trades training in post-secondary education. However, there are a number of those in place now. What does the ministry anticipate will be different with Skills Now as opposed to what is already there? What is significant about Skills Now?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Education is in a constant state of change. I hope it will always be that way. Many of the words that I've used -- "career prep" and "work experience" -- are phrases that have been around a long time. There are a number of different things that differentiate the Skills Now program. This is the start of a concentrated effort to change the very nature of our curriculum and move it toward applied sciences, applied math, and applied communications. It is a new direction in this sense: it explicitly recognizes that we have an overemphasis on the theoretical, or what is sometimes referred to as the academic. It is a distinct move toward "apply." The details of that will have to wait until we can show you new curricula that actually live up to the billing in terms of having a difference in emphasis. The apprenticeship programs in British Columbia have withered over the last 20 years -- not apprenticeship itself, but apprenticeship prep in high school is a completely new thing. It hasn't been around before. Partly through the change in emphasis on applied versus theoretical, partly on the basis of career prep -- and I'll come to that in a moment -- it can lead high school students in an orderly way. I shouldn't say lead, because it really means giving students an opportunity while still in high school to look into and perhaps pre-select an apprenticeship area. We can even link it to out-of-school work experience they are currently obtaining that is related to an apprenticeship area -- and not just the traditional apprenticeship areas but also many new ones.
[4:15]
We have been meeting around the province -- I believe you attended one of the labour-business-education forums; there were, I believe, 15 or 17 of them. The whole process of career prep and apprenticeship prep is informed by the results of those forums. There was a real buy-in by the participants to the idea that work experience could not be the same thing in the future as it has been in the past; that the skills students pick up be relevant to the real world; and that the training they get in a business premises, be it retail, commercial, professional or industrial, be related to the K-to-12 place of learning as well as to the college courses available in the same disciplines.
I believe these are real changes, and that if you also bring to that the ability to make serious use of the potential of the electronic highway -- so that, for example, we can have high school students taking college courses and getting credit for them while still in high school -- that may be the best way to deliver the more theoretical courses that some students want.
[ Page 11830 ]
I'd like to talk on this for an hour, but I'm going to shut up and sit down now. There are some real changes occurring here that are going to be more than just the old rhetoric about work experience or career prep. These are going to be real changes that will be reflected both in the curriculum and in the actual experience that young men and women will be gaining.
L. Stephens: I agree with the minister that these changes are needed and the sooner, the better. I believe the high schools can make a tremendous contribution to that. The linkages to business are important, as are the linkages to post-secondary institutions. But the biggest problem we will perhaps find is that facilities are not in the schools for the technology needed. The computers in the school system are largely outdated. Because of the way technology changes so rapidly today, I'd like to know how the minister is going to provide the kind of equipment that will be needed to teach these new skills.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the member opposite must have been reading some of my speeches. You're right, the technology is not in our schools, and putting in leading-edge technology is too expensive. I believe we have to upgrade the technology to no more than perhaps three to five years old. Then I think we have to look very seriously at moving the students to where the equipment is, and that's where the partnership with business and industry comes in.
I made reference in an earlier answer to the principles of technology program up in Kitimat. They have such a partnership with Alcan and also with Eurocan and Methanex in the Kitimat area, where students go into those facilities to use their laboratories and testing equipment. It's cutting-edge; it's as modern as could be. I think that is the way to go: a true, solid partnership between business, labour and education, with the high school teachers involved in this process and upgrading their own knowledge by being exposed to current technology and current computers.
I will say that although we could do better, we do have literally tens of thousands of nearly state-of-the-art computers in our schools. I am impressed in school after school when looking at their computer labs, and particularly when looking at what they have done in their libraries and how the librarian quite often has become the gate-keeper, if you will, to the world of information via the electronic highway. The use of networks and databases worldwide is very impressive, and the level of technology going into the high schools that are being built now is also very impressive and quite up to date.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
L. Stephens: There are some innovative programs going on around the province, and Kitimat is indeed one of them. But there are a number of areas where that's just not feasible. Students wouldn't have access to the kind of strategic partnership with industry that you're referring to. In order to fulfil the equity of public education in a publicly funded system, we have to find more creative ways to get those kinds of skills to the students in those areas.
I've talked about this before, but I wonder if the minster has visited the Edmonds school district in Washington State and has looked at some of the ways they are trying to address that. I think they have a freestanding building that is funded, built and equipped by industry, labour and government. It's like they have feeder high schools, and the students are bused to this freestanding centre where they receive training in the latest state-of-the-art technology, programs and so on. That is how they are addressing this particular issue. My first question is whether or not the minister has looked at this model and whether this is something he would consider.
My second question is about the upgrading of computers in schools that the minister referred to. What is the budget for that this year? What budget is the ministry going to be allocating for that kind of upgrading on equipment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have not been to the Washington State site that you mentioned. But it is something I wouldn't mind seeing.
I have mentioned that in some locations -- using automotive as an example -- we cannot possibly put state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment in every one of our high schools. I've wondered aloud on a number of occasions whether, if we had three- to five-year-old equipment, the automotive industry might equip a centre where the students could go to be exposed to and get some actual time on cutting-edge technology in automotive. I think what you have said is occurring in Washington is similar to that. I'm certainly interested in that, and if I can find the time, I'll pursue the notion.
The whole issue of equity with respect to this is something I think we have to deal in with a couple of different ways. In terms of instruction, I think distance ed is a partial solution. I'll make reference to my own School District 24, where we have some very large high schools in Kamloops. At the same time the district serves Barriere, Chase and Logan Lake, where the high schools are much smaller and hence cannot offer the range.
There's no reason, in my view, why we cannot have a tech-prep course, perhaps, taught -- it need not be taught in Kamloops; it could be taught in Terrace -- if we had two-way video conferencing or even a one-way video feed into those smaller high schools. I see no difficulty in reaching out for the programmatic side of instruction. It is one more level of challenge with respect to them having hands-on experience with the equipment. We do have remote sites around the province where it is simply not conceivable to bus the students 100 or 200 kilometres for that. We will have to do our best with respect to at least having some equipment available and some through distance ed. In some instances, as families always have, families will probably make decisions to move to where the technology instruction is available.
L. Fox: Getting back to the Skills Now initiative, the minister earlier suggested that there was in the budget this year, I think, $6.5 million for the Skills Now initiative. Is that amount totally for developing models and new initiatives -- pilots in particular? Or is some of that for actual delivery of programs?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before I answer your question, there is one element you asked about that I neglected to answer, even though the note was pushed in front of me. As for purchases of computers, within the block there's about $10 million allocated this year for purchase of computers around the province.
The programs we are selecting from the proposals being made to us from districts are for actual delivery of programs. They may be a pilot. We may be putting in some additional seed money to allow them to develop a bit more curriculum and, in some instances, to purchase ready-made curriculum and adapt it to our curriculum. For the most part the money
[ Page 11831 ]
is going to actual instruction, even though we may be calling it a pilot.
L. Fox: I guess there are a couple of things. Can the minister answer a question with respect to how much response there has been from all the districts to this $6.5 million? Indeed, is that going to be sufficient to meet the requests of all the initiatives in all 75 school districts?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have not yet received all the statements of interest or applications. I'm told that some applications coming in will even be for planning money to deliver a program the following year. All I can say is that there is significant interest in this, and it wouldn't surprise me if the total applications exceed our ability to pay. We will have to select out of the applications a set of programs that does not exceed the budget allocation I have been given.
[4:30]
L. Fox: I have one further question with respect to that. Is there any priority given to the applied side versus the technical side, or all applications considered equally within the new umbrella that this initiative appears to cover?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The thrust will be toward applied courses and technology, but the skills that young people need to move into the world of work are not all technological. Many other skills can be developed in conjunction with business and labour, as I've said, and the retail area is but one example of where the interests of many young people lie. We are not going to put on blinkers to the degree that we're only talking science, technology and applied skills. There is a thrust to that because there is, of course, a thrust in our entire economy.
I might point out to you the newest issue of Ministry News. We have a fair amount of information in it on the Skills Now program, covering what we're planning, what the initiatives are and how it ties in with the intermediates and the grads. Two or three skills projects are also outlined in here. One of them, incidentally, is in Prince George. If you like, I'll arrange to get a copy of this to you promptly.
L. Fox: I'd be pleased to accept that. I'll add it to my pile and will certainly read it.
I have a couple of observations from earlier discussions in which the minister pointed out the unique situation in Kitimat. In terms of rural British Columbia, I would suggest that this is probably a unique opportunity. There aren't many communities with a corporation the size of Alcan contained within them that provide the kind of lab, for instance, they have in Kitimat.
There is in the automotive trade -- for instance, and the minister alluded to this -- the idea of co-opting the private sector and providing the equipment side to meet various needs. That's a good idea, but it unfortunately varies dramatically from large community to smaller community. It has always been the case in the smaller communities that the school has far better and far newer equipment than the private sector can afford to buy. There are obviously some opportunities, if we believe very strongly that we want to provide equal opportunity as much as possible for all students to achieve the maximum they can in their respective high schools. I understand the issues around the electronic initiatives. The minister talked about the electronic highway; I'm not sure yet whether I support that. It has all kinds of educational and medical value, and so on. There are a number of downsides, too, in that there doesn't appear to be a lot of controls. I recognize the positive sides in terms of accessing libraries, speeches, instructions and courses on a worldwide basis.
There are some pilots being looked at in Nechako with that in mind. In fact, they're looking at the idea of offering physics, I believe. As the minister mentioned, there aren't enough students in my riding, which is not much different than his.... There are three high schools, and there aren't enough students requiring this course in any of them. The two-way video process provides a way to offer it. I believe they're doing some feasibility studies on that in Nechako. Would that feasibility be eligible under Skills Now? Would money to fund that feasibility fall into that program?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, I think it would. Depending on the degree of oversubscription, it may or may not be funded this time around. However, I think that's a good example of the kind of situation where information highway technology can be applied in a very productive and effective sense.
L. Fox: There is one other initiative I want to talk about. Nechako is a very aggressive district and has a very aggressive board. They're looking at offering a program, through the electronic highway, of educational courses to home-school students on a provincewide basis, which is unique, if in fact the system allows it. I understand that one interior board has written a letter to the minister concerning this. First, I should ask if that is considered by the ministry to be a legal initiative. Second, if it is, would that kind of initiative fall under this funding as well?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We are aware of this initiative, and we're contemplating it. In any technology there are ups and downs. I'm a tad apprehensive about the wholesale extension of the electronic highway to home schooling, because I think a school, and the interaction of children within that school, is part of their education as well. There are certainly those circumstances where individuals choose, for a variety of reasons, home schooling or correspondence. That's fine; that's their choice. At the same time, we have to be a little careful in that area.
L. Fox: I suppose you could argue that if the process was allowed, it would promote home schooling. While it is legal for parents to teach their own children at home, you could equally argue that they should have access to courses given by professionals and provided in an appropriate venue. I don't want to get into the argument about home-school eligibility, because that's already there in today's legislation. I guess my question is whether it's presently being considered by this ministry, but I think the minister has answered that. What I got out of the minister's answer is that you're presently considering the Nechako initiative. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We're looking at it, but we have to be cautious as to the possible impact on adjacent districts. We're considering the interests of all the districts, but there's some possible merit to the proposal.
L. Stephens: Just a bit more about the Skills Now program, particularly teacher-training and in-service and support for teachers to be able to deliver these kinds of programs. I have this ministry newspaper and "Making Education More Relevant." Is that the one the minister was referring to a little earlier?
[ Page 11832 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: A best-seller.
L. Stephens: Well, it should be a best-seller because it is quite good; it's very informative, as a matter of fact. On page 13 it talks a bit about teacher-training being provided through local partnerships and about technical skills training offered to teachers to allow for up-to-date workplace learning. It also talks about teacher internship programs during the summer that will enable them to update their knowledge of industry and its expected standards. In many respects this is almost like a whole new world for teachers. I wonder if the minister could perhaps elaborate a little on these two areas and tell us when this initiative will be happening, if there's a plan in place to help make it happen and if it has been factored into the Skills Now budget for '94-95. If that's the case, how much would it be for teacher in-service and support training?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The criteria for evaluating proposals coming in under the Skills Now initiative in K to 12 include elements of professional development. That's one of the criteria because, as in any area of education, the teachers are central to this program if it is going to work or to take root and flourish. We not only have to change the curriculum but we also have to assist teachers in changing some of their attitudes toward the curriculum. One example of a local initiative is here in Victoria, where about 200 teachers have been involved in a job-shadowing program that involves going in and observing industry firsthand. I think that's very valuable. I know that it's done on a massive scale in Britain. That program has been in place for some time, and I think it's an excellent way of keeping education up to date with the needs of our society as a whole.
[4:45]
L. Stephens: It also provides an opportunity for increased specialization in the K-to-12 system for teachers. I noticed one of the other initiatives here is that people with different backgrounds and training would be able to participate in the classrooms -- for instance, those who worked or taught in industry would be able to be certified, or certainly be pressed to have certification modifications to allow them to teach in classrooms. I'm pleased to see this is here, and I assume the ministry is thinking of it and is contemplating those kinds of moves. I would support this so that people with skills other than what we define as K-to-12 teachers are allowed into the classroom.
I don't think the minister answered how much the ministry budgeted for these kinds of training programs to assist teachers in 1994-95. As the minister knows, for a number of reasons there are a lot of stresses and strains on the ordinary classroom teacher, and this is another. Classroom teachers are already quite concerned about dealing with some of the initiatives that have come forward on special needs and so on. I think it's important that this particular issue be handled very carefully and with a great deal of sensitivity. Again I would ask the minister: what is the ministry planning for teacher support, and how much has been allocated for this upcoming year? Or are things simply in the planning stage and proposals being formalized?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a variety of sources of funds in the overall budget to address the needs of teachers. There's $8.5 million, which includes over $5 million specifically for teacher-training as part of the implementing education change in the block. There is also $15 million for ongoing teacher-training and professional development. There's $3 million as a special grant with respect to special needs professional development and teachers' aide training. Some of the $6.5 million in the Skills Now initiative will be used for the professional development of teachers, but at this point in time we don't know precisely how much -- probably a relatively small portion of the $6.5 million.
L. Stephens: I don't have any other questions on the Skills Now program. Unless other members do, I'll move on.
The Chair: Hon. members, there seems to be a bit of a break at this point -- not a break but a change of topic.
L. Stephens: We're going to be discussing the grad program and intermediate program, if that is acceptable.
T. Perry: I thank the distinguished member for Langley for her courtesy in yielding to me. I actually had one question, but fortuitously something has fallen into my mail just at the right time, so I'm going to ask two brief ones.
The first question concerns the startling announcement that at least the University of British Columbia and perhaps the other two main universities in British Columbia are going to repudiate the importance of studying non-European foreign languages. Frankly, as a Vancouver MLA, I was absolutely shocked to read in the newspaper a month or a month and a half ago that my alma mater in particular, the University of British Columbia, would suddenly suggest that Chinese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese and other non-European languages -- be they Punjabi or whatever -- were somehow less academically important or less suggestive of academic distinction than the traditional European languages, including dead languages like Latin. With a Premier who believes very strongly in the importance of the Asia-Pacific region and with people like the former president of Simon Fraser University, Dr. Bill Saywell, who is receiving the Order of British Columbia this week for his promotion of Asia-Pacific trade, I thought I was reading an April Fool day headline when I read that. I'm still not clear in my mind whether Simon Fraser and UVic are.... I see the deputy minister shaking her head.
I had two questions. Does the minister share my dismay at this policy? Does he have any comments that he wishes to inject into the public record about the arbitrariness of a university making a policy like this simply to make it more convenient to distinguish who to admit in an admittedly very tight, admissions competition? I realize he may not want to interfere with the turf of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, who is responsible for universities, but he might have a personal opinion to express on that. Can he tell us something about his response to this? I gather some work is being done to try to rectify this situation promptly. When we can expect relief for parents who are trying to encourage their kids to study these languages? I guess I speak as a parent who would like nothing better than to see my children learn to speak and read Chinese. Although I haven't yet seen any signs that they're willing to do so, I would hope that my kids become fluent in Chinese or Japanese by the time they graduate from high school.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll be careful not to poach on the territory of the Minister of Skills, Labour and Training, but I too had a bit of a reaction to the narrowing of acceptable subjects upon which the grade point average can be based. This of course eliminates all currently non-provincially examinable languages; hence it eliminates a mark in Japanese or Mandarin and perhaps eliminates the
[ Page 11833 ]
desirability of getting a.... Well, let's put it another way: as students look elsewhere to get high marks, they might not enrol in Mandarin or Japanese. The ministry is in the process of developing a new policy in this area, which it will be announcing shortly. I cannot, at this point, give a date or place, but I'm well aware of the concerns. I have expressed those concerns directly to Dr. Strangway, and I believe the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour has also expressed concerns. The issue has been raised with me as well during visits to districts and schools. It's an interest of broad concern to the citizens of British Columbia.
T. Perry: Just one very brief follow-up. Do you foresee a day in the near future when students outside the lower mainland will also be able to study Chinese, Japanese and other Asian languages in the long-term economic interests of the province as well as in the interests of scholarship?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is some provincial curriculum available now so that students elsewhere in the province can, and do, learn some of these languages -- primarily Pacific Rim and Indian subcontinent languages. I think there should be an increased availability of instruction in those languages. As we move towards certain policy developments, you will see the province moving in a direction that I think will meet your wholesale approval. There's little doubt that the economic future of British Columbia lies more with the Pacific Rim than it has in the past. We ought to give our students every opportunity to learn Pacific Rim languages.
T. Perry: Wholesale with Chinese and retail with Latin.
I've got one other question. While listening to the debate, I was reading some mail, and a letter fortuitously got into the right pile. It concerns children, particularly in Vancouver, who are gifted, which is defined these days as the 2 percent at the top end of the bell curve in standardized tests of intellectual aptitude. It's a rather sad letter from a Tracy Defoe on behalf of parents from five elementary schools in Vancouver, concerning policies of the Vancouver School Board. Attached to it is a brief headed "Elementary Learning in Richmond: Don't Cut Off Bright Kids." I feel some obligation to present these parents' views, because they don't often get heard in the Legislature.
A bias seems to exist that parents of intellectually gifted children don't really have any problems; their kids already have more advantages than others in life, and things will look after themselves. In fact, such children often do have trouble in the school system and probably have a higher dropout rate than that of average children, often because of the frustration of being obliged to work at the same pace as kids who are less capable intellectually. It's interesting that these parents begin their brief by saying:
"We believe in the public school system. We want to keep our children in public schools, where they will meet children of diverse backgrounds and needs, where they will grow up with a commitment to society as a whole.
"We do not understand, and we do not accept the withdrawal of support for the last remaining specialized instructional services for gifted elementary-aged children in the Vancouver public school system."
What they're really saying is that they are not elitist; they see their children as having the same needs as other children do. In fact, in some ways the 2 percent at the upper end of the bell curve in intelligence have some needs in common with those at the lower end, who are, in the current lingo, dubbed special needs children. In fact, both groups are special needs children.
They point out in this brief.... I must admit that I'm glad I stopped to read it, because I wasn't quite aware of how startlingly conditions have changed in four years. I don't know if the minister can see this, but I'll pass it along. It's a graph showing the number of schools in the last four years which have had learning enrichment programs, and they're symbolized as going rapidly downward in a kind of reverse-exponential decay.
[5:00]
Similarly, the number of full-time-equivalent staffing has dropped significantly from 1990-91 to 1992 and then is roughly holding steady, while the number of children recognized as gifted has increased dramatically in the Vancouver schools. They point out that if you look at the students at two ends of a bell curve and significant resource in full-time-equivalents assigned to learning assistance centres for those deemed to require learning assistance, there is proportionately much smaller staffing for those deemed gifted, who are presumed to be able to cope for themselves.
I realize that decisions within individual school districts are up to the school district, but I wonder if I could ask the minister for his philosophical outlook -- after ten months on the job or however long he has been in this benighted role -- about how we're going to look after such kids. It strikes me as crucial that we maintain the presence of kids like that in the public system and that they be well served.
In my district increasing numbers of such kids are being withdrawn by their parents from the public schools because private schools are relatively available and of relatively high standard. Each time I see that, it strikes me as another significant blow to the public system, but I don't see it as the fault of the parents. I wonder if the minister could share his views on this.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Indeed, there are gifted children who do get into difficulties in the system, sometimes out of frustration and boredom, and sometimes because they have a special learning disability. As the member well knows, many dyslexic children are extremely bright, and the system, years back, saw only their dyslexia and marked them off as something other than gifted, other than very bright.
I think we have to make as many efforts as we can to serve the needs of all our children. All special needs children should have an individual learning plan. I believe there's a couple of areas, particularly with the use of technology, where we can make education more relevant for the gifted student. We can offer in the high school years perhaps, or conceivably before that, a college course through one-way or two-way video where they learn through software of incredible complexity and sophistication which is coming available. A gifted student can learn at their own pace and advance at a considerable rate.
On the other hand, I do know that at least one district has a philosophical view that all children are gifted. They don't recognize a gifted category at all in their schools. They want all children who are gifted in whatever area a child might be gifted to be recognized. They use the allocation to try to enrich the education experience of all children.
T. Perry: I thank the member opposite for her forbearance. I'm just going to follow up very briefly. Do you see any possibility that funds from the Skills Now initiative or the discretionary funds not already committed by the Ministry of Education might be available on a competitive basis to school districts? This might be, for instance, for technology in the case of kids who are frustrated with the pace of their education so that they might have better access to
[ Page 11834 ]
computer-based learning programs, and in cases where the relatively small capital barrier is between a satisfied and stimulated child and one who is chronically frustrated and bored.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think there are gifted children in many and perhaps all categories of career alternatives and apprenticeship prep, and if the technology and more relevance is introduced into our schools.... I have personally seen an instance of a young man, gifted by any measure, who out of frustration had found himself in such difficulty with the system that he had left, and he is now a "drop-in" to the system. Perhaps if more relevant technology and skills had been available and if there had been the technology for that young man to exercise his skills, he might never have left in the first place. That turned out to be a success story for a whole lot of other reasons. I think there are a lot of gifted students we could keep in the system, at a higher level of satisfaction, through individual learning plans and through ready access to the information highway, networking, college level courses and quality educational software.
T. Perry: Much of the public was encouraged by the minister's commitment last fall to begin a process of accreditation of schools. When accreditation begins, I'm curious as to whether there will be any attempt by the ministry to target accreditation first to those schools where parents have identified significant problems. I have some relevant experience which I won't cite in public, but which I would be glad to share with the minister. It strikes me that where parents, teachers or administrators are frustrated with the performance of a school, the expectations of parents or difficulties arising from the many pressures the system is under, it may be desirable to target accreditation first to those places where problems are identified rather than institute it in a purely random process.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Secondary schools are on a rotational basis of accreditation now. Many elementary and intermediate schools have also voluntarily gone through accreditation. I would suggest that if parents are aware of a school where they feel there is a problem, they should first identify that clearly to their district. I would hope that the district would then seek accreditation of a school that seems troubled if a lot of parents deem it to be troubled. Any parent can also write to the ministry urging that such a school be accredited, and we would give consideration to that in setting up the new rotational system to accredit all schools.
D. Mitchell: I have a couple of specific questions for the minister about one of the school districts in the constituency I represent -- School District 48, the Howe Sound School District.
In the northern part of that district there is currently one high school serving two diverse communities, Pemberton and Whistler. That's going to change next year. Thanks in large part to the support of the ministry, a new high school is being constructed in Pemberton; planning is well in progress for that. A new high school, we hope, is going to be proceeding in Whistler as well. These two smaller institutions will replace one larger one. The approach of the ministry on this has been very commendable: replacing larger factory-style schools, where there are transportation problems and safety issues such as busing students in from larger areas, by two smaller, moderate-sized institutions serving local communities more directly.
However, the community of Whistler is concerned that the capital funds have not yet been approved. We know that this matter must be before the ministry or before Treasury Board. I'd like to ask the minister for an update as to whether it's going to be delayed for long. The concern here is that by the time we get into the fall, if the foundations haven't been laid for the school and the snow starts to fly up in the Whistler area, we'll have lost the opportunity to proceed. The new facility in Pemberton will not be able to accommodate both communities. I'm sure the minister is aware that the residents of Whistler are very concerned. They're waiting day by day for word from the ministry about whether the new Whistler school's capital plan is going to be approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The school was on the list of the capital projects that I sent out to the district for them to review and to see if they wanted to reprioritize. When it came back the school was still on the list. Although the board has not formally been advised of their capital plan yet, I'll be sending out letters to all boards within perhaps a week. I can say that it was on their list both going out and coming back.
Then it is a case of the state of readiness. If it is in the capital plan -- the envelope for this year, it then becomes eligible for final approval. Then the full $340 million is approved for projects as they become ready. As the district, so to speak, gets all their ducks in a row, designed, completed and everything else, then they will be coming forward for project-specific approval. When that happens I'll be considering it exactly for that.
D. Mitchell: Just so I understand what the minister has said, there's no question that the school district in this case has indeed communicated with the ministry that the high school in Whistler is a priority. Is the minister saying that it is simply waiting a decision by either himself or Treasury Board? If so, what does that process look like? So that the trustees of School District 48 will know within a certain period of time that they can in fact proceed with this new school, can you say how long that will take?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm advised that the state of readiness on that project is quite high. I suspect that, as soon as the formal capital plans are sent out and boards then turn around and make final project approval applications, we will act relatively quickly. We'll have many districts looking for approvals, and we can only handle them at a certain rate. A lot of work needs to be done in the ministry as well. So not all projects that flood in will turn around and immediately go back out. However, it is my understanding that this specific project is well advanced in the planning, hence they could reasonably expect that we will be able to turn it around relatively briefly.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. I take it he's not prepared to make an announcement today, but we hope one will be forthcoming soon. Who knows? Maybe very soon. As I said, there isn't time sensitivity on this one, in terms of the need to go ahead with construction before the ground freezes up this fall, or certainly well before that. There's also some uncertainty with the existing mix of secondary schools in that school district.
[5:15]
At the elementary school level, there's one other issue I'd like to address while we're on this topic. Again, it addresses a capital issue in School District 48. Two schools are hoping to go ahead with significant capital programs in School District 48. One is in the Garibaldi Highlands area of
[ Page 11835 ]
Squamish, and the other is Brackendale Elementary, also in the Squamish area. I know the minister will be familiar with Brackendale Elementary, since he's received quite a bit of correspondence on this issue from concerned parents, as well as trustees.
The issue with Brackendale Elementary is that it's in need of significant upgrading and repair. It's been deemed by many in the community not to be safe for the students who attend. I know the minister has received strong representation on this from the community. Understandably, as the MLA, so have I. There is frustration about the lack of guidance or direction being offered by the ministry and that perhaps decisions have been delayed. I wonder if the minister can give me an update on Brackendale Elementary School and whether or not the residents of Brackendale and the Squamish area can expect to see the renovations and repairs proceed over the course of this year, so that next year when students go back to school they'll have a much safer and better environment in which to learn.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, it's my understanding these are also projects where the state of readiness is at a very high level. They are on the capital plan going out and on the capital plan coming in. If all the ducks aren't in a row, they're very close to being in a row. Hence it would be expected that the ministry would be able, once the capital projects are announced and the requests for final approvals received, to move through the system quite quickly. In fact, I've already offered the services of the local MLA for site preparation.
D. Mitchell: I can assure the minister I'll be there.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With a shovel?
D. Mitchell: With a shovel. If the minister wishes to join me, he can bring his own shovel. I'm sure many people in Brackendale and Whistler will be glad to provide the shovels.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: It might be a bit early for skiing, though.
I have just one more question while I'm on this issue about School District 48. A recent controversy has emerged about school-based public libraries. Many smaller or medium-sized communities in the province have some experience with public libraries that are based in schools. It's a new idea in the community of Whistler, where the public library board, in its approval stage for a new public library, is being directed by the municipal council in the resort municipality of Whistler to have a public library in the new school being built there. This has created some controversy in the community as to whether or not this is the best fit for a growing community like Whistler. Does the ministry have any policy with respect to public libraries being situated in public schools? And if so, could the minister advise the committee as to what that policy is?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the idea of a public library in a public school is not a bad idea. It ties in quite nicely with the notion of a community school and the school being the centre of the community. There are some other services that I am urging other ministries to provide in community schools.
I do not know offhand -- and the information is not at hand -- exactly how many districts around the province, other than Whistler, have a public library in a public school. But there is nothing inherent in the idea that I find difficult at all. On the contrary, I'd be quite interested in pursuing that idea with districts and community school organizations.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments on that.
I have one further question to ask, which goes beyond the school district I'm referring to, and it deals with the ministry's policy with respect to the production of textbooks that are used in our public schools. The reason I ask this is that it has been brought to my attention that many, if not most, of the textbooks used in elementary and secondary schools in our province are not produced in British Columbia. In fact, many of them are American textbooks, and some of them come from offshore. Is the ministry involved in any initiative today to encourage the local manufacture of textbooks by British Columbia publishers for use in our schools? I ask this question is because of the obvious economic benefit to British Columbia in terms of creating jobs in the province.
There's also an issue here of intellectual capital. Why are we not using the intellectual capital in our province, or at least in our country, rather than importing textbooks from other countries for use in our schools? Surely the Ministry of Education should be championing this cause, because it would have direct economic benefits as well as maintaining intellectual capital in our province. Does the ministry have any policy on the manufacture of textbooks?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll answer your question before we adjourn.
The Chair: We do have to go and vote, but we'll let you make your remarks.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm interested in the notion generally. I am going to check further that we have a specific policy. At one time, I'm told, there was a policy that gave a price differential to B.C. publishers, but that might be problematic now in a trade sense.
Frankly, I would like to see some cooperation between provinces, because we all can't produce or create our own textbooks. We can, but it would certainly not be very wise economically. I would like to see more cross-Canada participation. In particular, I would like to see us moving toward electronic textbooks that are jointly developed. On occasion, though, we do have to recognize that there may be an excellent resource available from an American source. Then there's the difficult question of whether we spend taxpayer dollars to reinvent the wheel when, in fact, something could be bought at a lesser cost. On one side there's the intellectual argument and intellectual capital. The infusion of American philosophy is another issue. I much prefer the Canadian philosophy. I'd much prefer a Canadian textbook industry. We do have authors that support, write and contribute to textbooks. Some of those are in our schools, even though they may be published elsewhere. All told, I think I know where you're coming from on this in terms of supporting B.C. and supporting Canada, and I agree with that notion.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.
[ Page 11836 ]
The committee met at 7:06 p.m.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 21: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
L. Stephens: I want to ask a few questions about the grad and intermediate education programs. The UBC faculty of arts has issued a report containing some criticisms of the Year 2000. Is the minister familiar with it?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's in the ministry, but I haven't seen it yet.
L. Stephens: I'll read from the executive summary and ask for a response. It says that the Year 2000 Project "is a radically different vision of the last two years of high school than that which exists at present." It goes on to say:
"The philosophy of the program erodes attempts to achieve academic excellence.
"The heavy emphasis on the learner is inappropriate; this denies the important roles of both teacher and family.
"The general studies curriculum is ill-defined; it takes away time from the traditional disciplines and compromises the social sciences.
"The emphasis on individual rate of progress may lead to increased disparity between school districts and private schools, and reduce the possibility of access to university from certain schools.
"Radical revamping of teacher training programs will be required.
"Each disciplinary grouping -- English, languages, social sciences, creative and performing arts, and applied social sciences -- has substantive concerns about the potentially negative impact of the graduation program."
I'm sure the minister is aware that there have been a number of criticisms of the Year 2000. There was a primary program review done, and from that a number of changes were made to reporting in the intermediate program. I wonder if the minister would bring us up to date on what is happening with the intermediate program. April 30, I understand, was the deadline to have responses back from that. Perhaps we could have an update on what is happening with the intermediate program right now.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As a result of sending out the final draft of the intermediate and grad document and inviting comment, we have received approximately 4,000 submissions, including some quite major ones. The BCTF, in fact, asked for an extension and did not submit their comments until the end of May. My staff is in the process of going through all 4,000 submissions and distilling from those the information needed to brief me. As of now I have not received a briefing on the critiques that have come in, but I should point out that the documents that went out were drafts. They were released specifically for the purpose that has been accomplished: to provoke debate and to allow partners in education the opportunity to give careful thought and then to draft their comments and submit them. Nothing is set in stone in either the intermediate or the grad policy. We will be considering very seriously all the substantive critique that has come in, and at that point in time -- and only then unfortunately -- I will be able to share with you where we are going to take either of those policies.
L. Stephens: The initial proposal was to have an optional program in place for the 1994-95 school year with mandatory implementation in 1995-96. Is that time line still the intent of the ministry? If so, what will be available for the 1994-95 year, given that we are now almost at the end of June? A program will have to be formulated and out there by September, I suspect. What is the time line for the ministry, given that the minister has just said that a lot of work needs to be done between now and then?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The schedule stays the same. The 1994-95 school year is a planning year, although there may be districts that choose to voluntarily implement the program, and 1995-96 becomes the mandatory year. The review I mentioned -- the review of all the critiques that have come in -- is well advanced. I will be briefed on it next week, and we will then move toward final policy decisions by the end of the month. The schedule remains to finalize both policies by the end of June, planning in 1994-95 and mandatory implementation in 1995-96.
L. Stephens: From the very beginning there have been a couple of significant and fundamental concerns with both programs, particularly the intermediate program. The program band is grades 4 to 10. Many people have said that this is too large and encompassing and that program implementation is not realistic because of that wide span of grades. Is the ministry looking at narrowing that -- say, grades 4 to 8 -- and making grades 9 and 10 into sort of a transitional grad time line? Is there any consideration for something along those lines?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, that is under consideration.
[7:15]
L. Stephens: As for the personal and career planning features, probably the biggest objections -- among people that I speak to anyway -- are in the area of the "Learning for Living" curriculum, which seems to be the basis of much, if not most, of the Year 2000 philosophy and the intermediate and graduate programs. The premise of the "Learning for Living" curriculum is the basis for personal planning. Is the ministry contemplating any changes to the "Learning for Living" curriculum?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, the details and finalization will be coming over the next two or three weeks, and no doubt some refinement well beyond that. The "Learning for Living" program itself has not, of course, been implemented. We know from the implementation of the primary program that certain things might have been done differently. In fact, with respect to the entire primary program, the process of making the changes I introduced in November -- modifying some of the reporting, reintroducing the grade structure and a number of other changes to increase structure and standards a little and put a little more emphasis on the basics -- taught us many things. So in the process of finalizing and then implementing "Learning for Living," we will incorporate the lessons that were learned earlier.
But the heart of the issue with respect to "Learning for Living," under the personal planning aspect of it, is as outlined in the paper: to promote active, continuous, lifelong learning, to encourage students to plan, organize and manage their time and take greater responsibility for their learning -- I think we would all agree with that principle -- and then to assess students' strengths, interests and accomplishments. There are some possible and very interesting options that bring in some of the concepts from Skills Now
[ Page 11837 ]
and others that we will be considering in finalization of this program.
L. Stephens: In the document on the intermediate program policy it says under personal planning that the two key elements, advising students and developing the student learning plans, also incorporate the "Learning for Living" curriculum and career exploration. I don't think most people would have any difficulty with these things, which the minister has just mentioned.
A criticism, if you could call it that, which comes up when they talk about the "Learning for Living" curriculum is that it deals with the social, emotional and spiritual dimensions of development and in so doing encompasses the affective domain -- that is, attitudes, feelings, values, morals and ethics. This is referred to as affective education. Dr. William Coulson, as you or your staff are probably aware, was the assistant to Abraham Maslow, the originator of affective education, which a lot of the Year 2000 is based on. There are now some severe criticisms of that educational philosophy by Dr. William Coulson, who was one of the partners of the implementation of it in the States some time ago. I'm not sure if the minister is familiar with these criticisms and what some of this talk is about. Quest, which is the company that was formed to do a number of programs based on the Year 2000 in the States, says it is clear that slighting content and substituting a psychotherapeutic style of classroom management turns out to hurt children. It isn't clinical enough, professional enough or powerful enough to help those who are not. The premise of the criticism is that, because it is a psychological form of education, those who are delivering it are not professional enough or trained in the kind of direction being given to the children.
It talks about the method used to help children get in touch with their values, feelings and so on being called "values clarification." Teachers should help students discover and clarify their own personal values instead of trying to force someone else's values on them, and to tell a student stealing is wrong or that kindness and loyalty are good values would be inappropriate, according to values clarification. There are many issues around this "Learning for Living" curriculum coming forward around those ideas, and values clarification is one. Affective education is another, and spirituality and guided imagery are yet another. There is self-esteem, which we hear a lot about in the schools and in education today, and this talks about how that can be achieved for students.
There's a premise in the curriculum that talks about "Learning for Living" being based on the philosophy that changes in attitude produce changes in achievement. The teacher becomes a facilitator of student self-discovery, and the student is encouraged to turn inward and explore feelings. These are two diametrically opposed philosophies concerning the development of self-esteem, one being that changes in attitude produce changes in achievement, and the other that changes in achievement produce changes in attitude. There seems to be a difference in philosophy as to whether achievement promotes self-esteem or self-esteem comes first and is then followed by achievement. I wonder if the minister could share his views on the issue of self-esteem.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are probably a lot of writings by numerous philosophers in education that go on a lot about things that from my point of view are, broadly speaking, on the touchy-feely side. I think anybody who knows me knows that I'm not exactly on that side of things.
I believe quite firmly that self-esteem follows accomplishment and that the education system should be designed to build self-esteem through accomplishment. In my way of thinking, this requires some structure, a little push and a partnership with parents that insists on respect for teachers, schools, other persons and property. It calls for striving. I believe most definitely that self-esteem comes from achievement. Praise has a very valuable place when it follows achievement, but I do not believe that children will go out and succeed in the world simply because they have been praised. That will not get them anywhere. I want to turn the curriculum more toward the practical and the applied, but with levels of rigour at least as high as what is expected in our curriculum today.
We're not going to take a philosophy by any educational philosopher and simply follow it holus-bolus or blindly. We need to teach better problem-solving skills, and we can. We need to address many ongoing societal problems that deal with physical and mental health, and we can in "Learning for Living." We have to teach the value of self-respect and respect for others, and we can. We have to deal with the very difficult societal topics of teen pregnancy, teen sex, AIDS, and so on -- and we can. A lot of these things can be brought into a very practical and applied "Learning for Living," and that is the direction I'm steering the educational ship.
[F. Gingell in the chair.]
L. Stephens: It's nice to see the hon. member for Delta South in the chair.
The Chair: Power!
L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to hear the minister's reply to the "Learning for Living" curriculum, his views and how the curriculum will be directed in schools. I'm sure a number of people will take a great deal of comfort from that approach and direction. When the two programs are finalized, I'm sure we're going to see this direction being taken.
[7:30]
I have one question on the proposed grad requirements and certification. Current grad requirements are a grade 11 provincial mathematics course and a grade 11 provincial science course. For future grad requirements, a four-credit mathematics course and a four-credit science course are proposed. No mention is made of the kind of mathematics or science courses -- whether grade 11 or grade 12, or a combination thereof. Perhaps it was left this way pending finalization. Could the minister elaborate a little on what kinds of mathematics and science courses would be required for the proposed graduation requirements in the future grad program?
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's okay, the Chair will understand that I just had to stall long enough so that we didn't have a revolution fomented out of the chair. Now that we have the chair back in safe hands, we can proceed.
The reason for the language of a mathematics course and a science course is to allow a little flexibility. An example that has just been given to me is that of a young man who may start a grade 11 provincial course, which is a four-credit course, two credits per semester. It has, let us say, an academic bent to it. He might take half that course and get two credits for it. In that community there may be a one-semester applied math course of high rigour but less
[ Page 11838 ]
theoretical, approved by the ministry, and the individual could then finish off his four-credit requirement by taking that applied course. It might be on the principles of technology, for example, where you have both math and physics embedded from the practical or applied side. That is the intention.
L. Stephens: This appears to allow a student some room to move within the technical trades or to transfer back and forth on the vocational side if they wish. What kind of evaluation is there going to be to uphold those rigorous standards the minister is talking about?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm going to take a step back even though we're in the midst of budget estimates. I want to add a bit more on the philosophy side. I guess there are two ways of looking at options. One is having an academic course that has relatively high rigour, and the other is having what used to be called a vocational math that had lower rigour or watered-down content. That is an example of what I do not want to accomplish.
I want the ministry to be developing curriculum that is different from the existing curriculum but every bit as rigorous, where we know what outcomes we want and what capabilities we want the individual to master, but they will happen to be more applied rather than more theoretical. It's nice, though, to have the choice. In a school where you've got a very large student population, you may well be able to offer both courses. Some may wish to take the more theoretical one, because that is what they will need later on. I hope we will be able to offer the more theoretical course in smaller schools, perhaps through a distance learning, college credit program, and applied math may be high rigour but applied.
In terms of the standards, we will determine what outcomes we want. Those, in effect, will become the standards.
L. Stephens: The emphasis today in the education system is, as I'm sure the minister is aware, on standards and assessments, and accountability. Everyone you speak to, particularly parents and students, is looking for standards and assessments. What are the standards? What do children want to know? How do we know when they get there, and how do we measure that they've gotten there? That's really what people are asking, and unless the ministry can show clear, desirable standards and a way of measuring them that is valuable to everyone, I think those questions will keep coming forward.
Now with the changes to the accreditation process for program evaluation, I assume there are going to be some significant associated costs. I'm told it costs about $800,000 per year to conduct accreditations for 55 secondary schools. There are about 1,646 schools in the province. If we're going to have accreditations each year, it will mean that approximately 275 schools are accredited each year for six years. Each year the cost for accreditation would be about $4 million. Is that a realistic figure? Has the ministry worked one out? Does the ministry have a figure on what it will cost each year for school accreditations, and how many accreditations do they think they can do in that year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total amount budgeted for accreditations is just over $2 million. Accreditations of elementary schools are quite a bit less expensive than the accreditations that we have been doing up to the present time, which are mostly for secondary schools. Secondaries must now be accredited, as you know. Elementaries can volunteer. Of those 1,700 schools you mentioned, the majority are elementaries. The objectives for 1994-95, which have just been brought to my attention, are about 100 elementary schools, 18 middle schools and 45 secondaries. As I said a minute ago, we will be spending a bit over $2 million on those accreditations.
In terms of your earlier comments on assessing and reporting content and standards, we instituted policies starting back in November to participate in national and international testing. The math testing and assessment have already been done. The reading assessment is underway, and a science assessment will be done next year. I support that kind of assessment. We will maintain the provincial examinations because those too are valuable assessments. The new district reports also require reports on reading, writing and mathematics achievements for their schools. I believe in good, relevant content in standards, in assessment and in reporting those assessments in order to build public confidence in the system.
L. Stephens: Could the minister say more about the national testings and standards he just spoke about? There was a conference in Montreal on standards three weeks ago; I understand the minister was there. I also understand that there wasn't too much agreement on national standards. I know it's something that provincial education ministers have been looking for, along with our provincial government. I wonder if the minister could give us a report on what was accomplished there by way of national education standards and the desire of the other provinces and the federal government to reach that objective.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If this is a report, am I to presume there will be an assessment and a grade following?
I should point out that the national education consultation in Montreal, which was the first-ever national consultation, was just that. It was an opportunity for close to 500 people from all jurisdictions, representing many partnership groups, to come together and for the ministers of education to listen to what they had to say. We had quite a few speakers. There were four half-day sessions with about four or five speakers in each session and then a reporting period after. The staff of the CMEC -- the council -- are bringing together all the information, plus questionnaires and evaluations that were submitted at the end. I'll be going down east to a meeting of the education ministers in a week or so to get my first direct report of what the distillation of the consultation was. At this point, I can report what transpired; I can't report an outcome.
The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes for a division.
The committee recessed at 7:44 p.m.
The committee resumed at 7:51 p.m.
L. Stephens: We were talking about the key indicators of performance earlier; those will be reported to the ministry from the school districts. Is that going to be available to all school districts? Will there be some comparisons between districts of graduation rates and various other criteria that are required to be reported to the ministry? Will those reports be available to all districts for comparison?
[ Page 11839 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, the information in the annual district reports will be public information to be shared with the public and between all districts.
L. Stephens: I would normally have a lot to say about the collective bargaining contracts that relate to the delivery of education, but we're having provincial bargaining soon, and I suspect there are going to be significant changes -- at least, I hope there will be -- to the collective bargaining contracts. I would assume that implementing a number of initiatives in the intermediate and grad programs, plus others the minister has talked about, is going to require some changes. I'm not going to ask how that may look, because I understand that the minister is not directly involved in the negotiations, but I would like some direction from the minister as to how these policies can work with the new provincial bargaining model, and what he sees flowing from that in relation to the new programs, policies and initiatives that are coming forward from the ministry.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The details will all have to be worked out at the table between the employers' association and the BCTF, but I honestly cannot see any significant impediments that would come out of that process regarding the delivery of an education product. All of the issues are resolvable, and most of them by far do not impact directly on instruction at all. On the few that may, I am totally confident that the two, both being in the end responsible parties, will come to an agreement that will facilitate the changes I see we need in education.
L. Stephens: I am hopeful that this will indeed come to pass. There are a number of issues in the collective bargaining process, such as class size, that have a huge bearing on program delivery and services to the classroom. There are many other issues around the collective bargaining process, and I hope the objectives of the ministry are not hindered by any glitches in that area.
One of the other things I want to ask about is the education resource package for the environment. I see that a new learning resource on the environment and on agriculture will be sent out. There is also a teachers' guide to the State of the Environment Report for British Columbia and a resource book, Backyard Biodiversity and Beyond. These are all resource materials for classroom teachers.
Before I go any further, I'd like to ask what percentage of classroom time will be spent on the five areas of the foundation studies. Has the minister any concern about a number of add-on programs, such as this environmental education package, and how they may fit in with the curriculum?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The foundation studies, which you can also look at as the basics, would be about 60 percent in terms of both credit and time requirements. We're speaking here of the grad program, correct? The guides you listed, although I cannot claim personal familiarity with them, all sound to me as if they might fit into an environmental studies course, which would be taken as an elective; it would not be a foundation course.
L. Stephens: Can the minister tell us what the percentage of foundations studies in the intermediate program would be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The final decisions, again, have not been taken. You're probably thinking in terms of the table that was included in the intermediate program policy. The program will be 10 percent to 20 percent electives, locally developed, so 80 percent to 90 percent will be provincial curriculum, which includes the basics. I don't know if you're looking for a number within that 80 percent to 90 percent; you'll have to clarify your question.
[8:00]
L. Stephens: Yes, I would be looking for a number within that, if you have a breakdown of the individual percentages for language arts, social studies, and so on.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: At the draft level, the numbers indicate about 50 percent for the basics, 10 percent for physical education and up to 15 percent for fine arts, practical arts and personal planning, plus locally developed curriculum beyond that. I have not finalized those numbers. I think I might increase the percentage in what you would refer to as the fundamentals, but that final decision has not yet been taken.
L. Stephens: I would advocate something more than the 50 percent for foundation studies, but I think I would also include fine arts in that category. Many people don't equate fine arts with foundation studies, but when we talk about a broad liberal arts education in the public education system, I think the fine arts have a very important role to play from kindergarten to grade 12. I encourage the minister to look at and perhaps give some weight and importance to fine arts. I think it's important that all our students acquire an understanding and appreciation of the fine arts and also be encouraged to participate in them.
Another area in the grad program about which I've had quite a bit of correspondence -- perhaps the minister has, too -- is "Society and the Individual." Could the minister expand a bit on that? I understand it's worth four credits, and it must be taken in grades 11 and 12. Could the minister tell us a little about what the program purports to do?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Very broadly speaking, I think you can look upon "Society and the Individual" as the equivalent of what we might have taken in civics. Frankly, from my reading of it, there is also some overlap between "Learning for Living" and civics. At the heart of it are the issues of civic responsibility, personal ethics and citizenship, changing values in the world of work, the demands of an evolving, modern economy, living and learning in a multi-cultural society, economic development, global cooperation and competition, effects of technology on modern life, violence, poverty and hunger. When I was in school, such a program might have been called civics. "Society and the Individual" would be a present-day version of civics with a present-day title.
L. Stephens: If that is what the course content will be, I don't think there will be much discussion. I've heard a number of people say that they would like to see more instruction in the area of citizenship to inform students of what it is to be a Canadian. But again, the "Learning for Living" curriculum taints many of these initiatives, for it is not looked upon as at all desirable by a large number of people. If there were an opportunity to bring forward the things that we do desire, it would probably be beneficial to all of us.
I'd like to talk a bit about the languages. I know the ministry is contemplating changes to provincially
[ Page 11840 ]
examinable subjects, and the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain spoke a little earlier about Mandarin and Japanese in our schools. Chinese and Japanese are taught in four areas within B.C., and Langley is one of them; the inclusion of Langley was a surprise to a number of people. I was also surprised until I looked at the numbers. I know the Premier has said on a number of occasions that we are going to be focusing much of our energy on the Pacific Rim. There are many reasons to include Mandarin and Japanese in the curriculum. Could the minister give us some indication of whether he is sympathetic to that proposal, and if so, when we will see something coming forward in this regard?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We will be announcing policies in the near future with respect to language policy and provincially examinable languages. I think it is apparent to anyone that the future of British Columbia, to a very substantial degree, lies in the Pacific Rim. It's not just Mandarin and Japanese, of course, but Cantonese, Korean, Punjabi and the possibility of Hindi. I believe the Indian subcontinent, along with China, is going to emerge as another economic powerhouse in the coming ten or 20 years. I think we also have to respect the desires of a substantial portion of our population with respect to respecting their languages and cultures. The final details of the policy have not yet been set, but soon will be. We'll be making an announcement fairly soon covering all these areas.
L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister would include the accreditation of French schools in that. Under the former minister a promise was made to establish a francophone school board. I'm sure the minister knows that section 23 of the Charter of Rights guarantees minority language education rights. I know the federal minister was here and discussed this issue with the minister and the francophone school board. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on what is happening, and if the forthcoming announcement includes the establishment of a French school board.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: British Columbia will comply with section 23 of the Charter; the question is how we comply. Francophone parents have been asking for a form of a provincewide school board as a form of governance. Considering the numbers involved, this would be quite expensive. Last fall I proposed a way I felt would give them real authority over program cadre such that they would feel confident it reflected their cultural values and met the test of section 23 at the same time. I thought for a while we were very close to an agreement, but in the end the francophone parents went back to the position of wanting a provincewide governance structure.
The problem that I have with this is cost containment, as much as anything else. I am in the process of trying to reduce the administrative and management costs that any corporation or bureaucracy would have. I am also mindful that our aboriginal people are desirous of aboriginal school governance. If I look ahead to a point where I accede to provincewide francophone governance, as well as to provincewide aboriginal governance, I see that we're into some very large costs without necessarily any higher quality.
I have talked to francophone parents, respecting their wishes and their point of view, and I have discussed with them how we can meet their quality objectives and have their culture as part of Programme Cadre -- a celebration of their culture -- by offering it in such a way that clearly there is some authority for the francophone parents. I'm trying to do that in a way that minimizes any additional governance costs. I hope the parents will come back to the negotiating table, so to speak. We would pursue jointly a solution that allows them to meet their fundamental objective, which surely must be a quality, francophone education, while at the same time allows government to meet its objective, which is to contain the overall administrative costs in education.
L. Stephens: We can all appreciate the need to control costs, but the federal Minister of Canadian Heritage has committed a number of dollars to implementing that in the province. Could the minister share with us what was committed by the federal Minister of Canadian Heritage, and what would be a ballpark figure for the province's share to implement this?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The short answer is that we don't know. The slightly longer answer is that until such time as the feds agree that the model we're putting forward meets the section 23 tests, they won't enter into negotiations or an agreement on a cost-sharing arrangement. They have to satisfy themselves first before they'll commit to anything, so at this point in time we don't know exactly what federal support there would be.
[8:15]
L. Stephens: I recall that the Minister of Canadian Heritage put forward a number. I'll have to go back and find it; it was predicated on costs in other jurisdictions and the federal government's formula for providing funding for this sort of initiative. I know the francophone community would be very grateful to move this issue along, because it's something they've been working on for a number of years, and they would like to have it resolved. Anything that can be done to help bring this about would be appreciated by the francophone group in the province.
Another issue is related to the B.C. Lower Mainland Consortium of School Boards for Successful Settlement. This is in a federal area as well. It's the costs that are associated with ESL and settlement of immigrants in the province. There are six school districts in the lower mainland that together have over 80 percent of the provincial ESL population: Burnaby, Coquitlam, North Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey and Vancouver. They've been meeting for about four years now to talk about issues and problems related to settlement needs of school-age children and their families. They have a publication called Immigration: Turning Policy into Programs." I wonder if the minister has been discussing this at all with whoever it might be on the federal side to try to come to grips with some sharing of immigrant families' settlement costs. Is this something the ministry feels needs to be addressed or is addressing at this time?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Anything with respect to settlement would not directly be an issue of this ministry, but I have no hesitance in saying that I am of the view that the feds have a role to play and that they have maybe been shirking some responsibilities in this area. The same thing could be said with respect to ESL costs. It is a very significant burden in ESL programs and in schools as a whole, but it is particularly significant in refugee situations, because there are other costs embedded within the education system covering that. I would rejoice if the feds were to take their place at the table.
The same thing could be said concerning some aspects of the aboriginal situation. I believe the feds at present owe us about $30 million in capital funds where we have provided spaces for aboriginal children. Through bands or in some
[ Page 11841 ]
instances directly, we receive federal funds on the operating side, but they also have a responsibility on the physical side -- the capital. We send them the bill for $30 million; they mark it "unpaid" and send it back.
L. Fox: I want to get into the discussion that took place earlier with respect to francophone school boards. In the discussion, the minister talked -- and rightfully so -- about other minorities in the province that may look for similar actions under section 23. I know that discussions have been going on for some time with the aboriginal people, back in the previous administration, and with the Carrier-Sekani and the Yinka Dene Language Institute in the Prince George region in particular. They had an initiative to create their own school board, in fact.
I have a couple of concerns with respect to that. I happened to be on the school board when the Programme Cadre was brought forward, and I recall very vividly that funding was provided by the federal government until we were obligated to continue to deliver the program. All of a sudden that funding was phased out, and much, if not all, of it was put on the provincial government to supply. I have a concern with the model the minister talked about with respect to francophones. When they envision a provincial school board for the purpose of delivering education to francophones, do they envision doing that within the existing public system or in a separate system?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The francophone parents are looking for a governance model which would be a provincewide school board but within the public school system, if that answers your question.
L. Fox: I'm wondering what kind of discussion has gone on between the ministry and the BCSTA with respect to how that might work.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Up to now I have not discussed this issue with the BCSTA at all. The first issue is to determine a satisfactory governance model. It continues to be my view that we must find a satisfactory governance model that does not entail a provincewide school board because of the costs associated with that. Even if a model were to be determined that was satisfactory to the feds and even if federal money is forthcoming, there's still only one taxpayer. So I'm looking for the least expensive governance model that will meet the section 23 tests and that will satisfy the francophone parents by giving them the assurance that they have a real sense of control over the education of their children.
L. Fox: In the two school districts I'm most familiar with, I find a lot of parental involvement in the French immersion program as well as in Programme Cadre, but I'm not sure if that program is still in existence in all districts. One of the advantages of those programs, quite frankly, is that it's not all francophones. In fact, by and large in one school in my district, a lot of the children have English-speaking, not francophone, parents. These parents want the opportunity to educate their children in a francophone environment so that they have that bilingualism that seems to be desired today in terms of having opportunities to move forward especially within the civil service. I want to find out whether the minister is aware of what the francophones are pushing for. In the view of francophone parents, where are we failing in the existing delivery of our French immersion programs?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it might be useful if I just go over the various programs that are available, because some of these issues are getting crossed up here. We have French immersion, of course, where francophones, anglophones and allophones can enrol their children. There is Programme Cadre in which only francophone parents can enrol their children. The test, as I recall, is that either a sibling or one of the parents has to be educated or eligible to be educated in a francophone school. Somebody might be English-speaking but, for purposes of section 23, that individual had the right to be educated in a francophone school, and their children still have that right That may be the way some who appear to be anglophone have a right to enrol their child in the francophone school. I would not have the right to enrol my children in a francophone school, and that's quite clear from the regulations.
The third element is simply core French or French as a second language. You may be interested in knowing -- an official just added up the numbers -- that the incremental cost of all those programs is some $8.9 million, which the feds contribute in various ways. I don't know whether or not all that additional information has assisted you on the question. If not, ask the question again, and I'll try answering it again.
I just recall that you were asking: "Why weren't they satisfied, then?" From their point of view it is an issue of control. Although there is a Programme Cadre, they know a school board is being funded and a program being delivered over which they, as francophone parents, have no authority or control as to exactly how the program is set up or delivered. Their view is that if there were to actually be a francophone board, then the francophone parents, through control of the board, could satisfy themselves that they had direct control over how the program was delivered. At the present time, some francophone parents in some parts of the province are dissatisfied from their point of view with how the school board is discharging its responsibilities. In other parts of the province, it is my understanding that the relationships between francophone parents and the local school board are excellent and are highly satisfactory, but not so in other areas.
[8:30]
L. Fox: It would seem to me that if we're still receiving funding from the federal government for delivery of the Programme Cadre -- and I would suggest that this is probably the program that francophone parents are looking at -- we must have to meet some qualifications in terms of program delivery in order to satisfy the federal government that we're meeting the objectives of that program. If some districts are offering a less-than-satisfactory program, we should have some authority within the system to deal with that, and it wouldn't take an official francophone board to do it. We should be able to do it under the education act and under the guidelines outlined for delivery of that program.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All those options have been canvassed in discussions between my officials and the Francophone Parents' Association, and the francophone parents have indicated that they want a degree of control beyond that. That is where the situation rests right now.
L. Fox: I appreciate that. To be very frank -- and I'm not sure I'm speaking for anyone else here other than myself -- I hope the minister resists giving up that authority. I took him at his word that he wants to keep the public system whole and collective, and I would hope that would happen. I would see any chipping away of authority within the system to be a
[ Page 11842 ]
foot-in-the-door kind of thing, and we would see more and more demands follow. We could, perhaps, split our public system into many different factions, because in actual fact in British Columbia francophones are a lot lower percentage of the population than aboriginals. They are a lower percentage, I believe, than Hindu-Canadians; and an even lower percentage now than the Asian peoples. If everybody started demanding that kind of autonomy, I would be very concerned about the direction of our public education system. If we are going to do anything about meeting cultural responsibilities, I would much prefer that we addressed the ones we have in relation to the aboriginal people. They're British Columbians, and they have no alternative.
Leading into that, let me say this. As I mentioned earlier, when Mr. Brummet was minister there were discussions with the Yinka-Dene society and the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council over whether they could form their own school boards. Some of the reasons given were the very same as those you have outlined in reference to francophones who are also looking for their own boards. Can the minister tell me if this is being discussed with the Yinka-Dene group?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can confirm that those discussions are carrying on. I also met with Chief Justa Monk of the Carrier-Sekani about six months ago. Together with his council and his educational adviser, we discussed governance issues, as well. Although I could not agree to what they requested, I urged that the discussions continue. To my knowledge, they have.
L. Fox: I note that the government finalized an agreement with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in February 1994. There are two parts to the agreement. The first is an umbrella agreement laying out the commitments of the province and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to the quality of education and to negotiation of a long-term aboriginal agreement. Is the whole official school board structure part of that negotiation process?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The agreement that was signed was a historic agreement. The umbrella part that you mention was very significant, because it was a so-called double bilateral. Rather than flowing directly from the province, or from the feds directly to the province, the funds now flow to the band and, through a local education agreement, from the band to the province. The involvement of the aboriginal people in this process should be regarded as healthy, because it will give them an increasing sense of ownership of the product.
With respect to the issues of governance, discussions have not yet occurred with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
L. Fox: I want to follow up on the second part of that agreement, because it allows the local bands, if they can't or don't wish to reach an LEA, to negotiate directly with the province. That leads one to wonder what the mechanism for that would be in terms of delivery of education. Would they go outside the local school board and cut a deal with the province, which would then say to the local school board: "Here's what the deal is, and here's what you must comply with"? Or would you set up a separate governance structure to fund education within that school district, which would then be essentially a band education council?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's nothing new within the new agreement in terms of the range of models that would be available to a band. It first establishes a remedy. If an LEA cannot be negotiated with a local district, it now allows the band to.... I think the first role the ministry might play would be to act as a mediator -- to go in, hopefully at the invitation of both parties, to see whether an LEA could be negotiated between them. But if for some reason either direct or mediated negotiation fails, it allows the province to become involved contractually with the band and, if need be, to buy contracted services from a district for the education of an aboriginal child living on a reserve.
Keep in mind that the agreement that was signed deals only with status Indians living on reserves. I think the likelihood that at the end of the day the province would become involved directly in establishing some kind of contracted services for children on a reserve is extremely unlikely, but the remedy is there as a last resort.
L. Fox: I understand and appreciate what the minister says. The only thing that concerns me with respect to this whole thing is the liability that the school districts are expected to accept, should the reserve or the band or the tribal council renege for some reason on its payment. I understand that quite often the month-to-month expenses are fronted by the school district, and the payments are made in maybe three- or six-month increments from the tribal council. If for any reason the tribal council or the band don't meet those obligations, the school district is on the hook for them. If a LEA wasn't negotiated locally because the school district was concerned about that, I can see that by getting the province involved in that negotiation there might be an opportunity to have the province accept some of that liability. As we go down the road, perhaps the opportunity for the province's involvement might be enhanced because of the school boards' concern about that liability and about exposing themselves because they're collecting money from a third party. Is that something the minister is aware of or be concerned about?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we should start on a positive note and say that the LEAs work. When the aboriginal band complains about something, it is usually out of a sense that they are not receiving value for their money.
[8:45]
We fund the school board at the outset. They receive their FTE funding, including the aboriginal count -- that is, the status or on-reserve count -- and then as the band pays, we reclaim. You're correct in that at the end of the day, if the band has not completed its payments, the province would pull the money back and the board would be left out-of-pocket. I don't know that this has been a problem. The band would first and foremost be looking for, again, some kind of mediation or something to correct the situation, as opposed to abrogating an LEA. Should they abrogate one, it would give them a problem the next school year, which I'm sure neither the band nor the district, and certainly not the province, would want to see. I think the key is delivering quality services to aboriginal children through an LEA. If we succeed in that, then we won't have the other problems.
L. Fox: It's my understanding that the federal portion that is paid to on-reserve schools goes directly to the bands or the tribal council now. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm sorry, but are you speaking of band-operated schools or public schools? If it's band-operated schools, the federal money goes directly to the band; that is correct.
[ Page 11843 ]
L. Fox: My experience is that the local education agreements are indeed for contracts signed between the local reserves, the band and the local school district in order to deliver an education product into the band schools. That happens in the case of the Tache school just out of Fort St. James in an agreement with School District 56. They receive their funding directly from the federal government through an agreement with the provincial government. Then they pay back on an incremental basis, usually after the fact, to the local school district. That's the issue that I was trying to deal with.
I don't see the same problem with the public system. I can foresee considerable problems in terms of the DIA or the band schools on reserves. One of the reasons I bring this up is that if the school district contracts with the respective band to deliver that product and, for some reason -- perhaps because of provincial bargaining -- there's a teachers' strike, the bands may in fact say: "Hey, you're no longer delivering this product. We're not going to pay you for it." The school board has some obligations toward staff and may find themselves with a real problem. That is the reason why I touched on the question.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In most of the province, of course, the bands who are receiving federal funds to operate a band school do so completely independently of the public system. There are a few -- and there are a couple in your district -- where the band does not have an LEA with the school board. They have a contract for services. As I understand it, the band school is physically located on the reserve and the teachers are contracted from the district. Some maintenance is contracted from the district. It is our understanding that the model is pretty good because it's business. It is a contract for services, hence the school board is quite anxious to keep the client pleased. If the client was not pleased in that instance, I'm sure that would be the end of their contract for service. To our knowledge, it's working quite fine. However, that is not, if I understand it correctly, the kind of local education agreement that you're speaking of in those schools. It is strictly a contract for service.
L. Fox: I read into the local education agreement exactly that, because they have reached an agreement as to the level of education, the quality of education, the kind of local programs and cultural programs. All those issues have been dealt with in what I thought was a local education agreement, so perhaps I misread the definition of what a local education agreement is, and if that's the case, I apologize.
You're correct. This is a very good initiative, but there is a certain liability that the school board accepts when it enters into this agreement. I've tried to point out that they spend their money up front in the payment of salaries and so on. They receive this money, in most cases, after the fact, so they expose themselves to a liability should something unforeseen happen. Perhaps the extent of that liability in terms of what local education agreements mean is perhaps less than what I envisioned and read into this. In my view that whole idea -- if you want to call it a contract for service, that's fine -- is a growing phenomenon and is going to increase the cost of administration -- something you're trying to cut -- because of contracting out and the delivery of special programs in a specific type of school in a specific culture. This is all good stuff, but it adds to the cost.
V. Anderson: Following up on the same area, how many independent band schools do we have in the province at present, and what is the relationship in conversation or interaction between the schools and what they're doing in the educational system? Are these students then able to come into the public school system? What kind of recognition and support is being given to teachers who work in these schools? What kind of connection is there with those teachers?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I want to double-check a couple of my understandings. A very large majority of band schools operate completely independently of the public system. They're funded directly by the feds, almost all are elementary schools and the vast majority follow the provincial curriculum, such that their students, on coming out of elementary, then come down to a public secondary school. You used the term independent, and there are some band schools who also qualify as independent schools. They have certified teachers. They meet all the tests of the Independent School Act and are funded partially by the province as independent schools. They too follow the full curriculum. About ten days ago, by happenstance, I was in one school at Kispiox, where services are also delivered to non-aboriginal children in that area.
V. Anderson: What relationship does the provincial Education ministry have with that group of schools? Is it a consulting relationship? Do you meet with them? Is there any informal organization by which there's interaction and a support relationship between them on curriculum and materials, on teachers' support, as well as on school operation
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The band schools are completely separate and apart from the public system. If they approach us for assistance, materials or curriculum, we supply it. There is no ongoing consultation process or any organization that I am aware of that our officials meet with. There's none that I have met with, other than dropping in at individual schools to find what they were doing and how they were doing it. If they are registered as an independent school and there are 20 non-aboriginal students in there, we then fund it as an independent. I believe we purchase the service from them for those 20 non-aboriginal students. It's sort of the reverse of the public system, where they buy a service from us. The large majority of them follow our curriculum of their own choice, knowing that their children are going to come into the public system at a later grade. Beyond that, we have no ongoing consultative relationship with them.
V. Anderson: This relates to another question about the relationship between your ministry and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. I understand that there is a committee working between them and the aboriginal community. What is taking place? When I tried to follow up some of these a year ago in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, they would refer to me to the Social Services ministry on one hand and to the Education ministry on the other. I hear there's consultation going on between the ministries related to education in this particular sense. It's hard to pin it down and find out what's really happening. What kind of interconnection is there between the Aboriginal Affairs ministry's contact with aboriginal communities and the Education ministry's contact with aboriginal students?
[9:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are two policy tables. One is the summit policy table, which the Premier chairs. Both the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I are members. The
[ Page 11844 ]
other is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs table, which is a parallel process. Both those policy tables have ongoing processes. The umbrella agreement that I signed with the union came out of that process. Meetings continue at that table with respect to the implementation and the issues. If governance comes up, that's where that issue would be handled. At the summit table, the policy development proceeds, and at some point there will be a parallel agreement signed between the government and the summit. That is the connection at that level. The connection between the Education ministry and the Aboriginal Affairs ministry occurs at those two policy tables, in a formal sort of way.
V. Anderson: I'm concerned about teacher support in two areas. One is whether you have some direct support through the NITEP, the native Indian teacher education program for those who will be teaching in our communities with aboriginal children in aboriginal schools, independent schools or Ministry of Education schools. I'm wondering about the kind of orientation that comes with that program and also about the kind of orientation that is given to non-aboriginal teachers in a regular school system where they have aboriginal students. What kind of orientation is available to enable them to understand and be able to relate well with the aboriginal children? In the past a major breakdown has been that non-aboriginal teachers have not been able to relate well or be helpful to aboriginal students.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All the areas you mention are important. It is the direct responsibility of the district to establish whatever kind of training -- either initial or ongoing -- deemed necessary for teachers. I have seen firsthand a great deal of sensitivity on these issues. Finally we're getting increasing numbers of aboriginal teachers coming into the system.
At an elementary school only a few kilometres from us here in Victoria there is an aboriginal kindergarten that deals a great deal with the culture of the aboriginal people. At Admiral Seymour Elementary School in Vancouver an aboriginal parent group comes in. A school classroom is dedicated to the aboriginal parents as a community centre for all aspects of aboriginal culture. When I visited, four or five aboriginal parents were there doing a variety of crafts. Students dropped in and worked with them, as well as teachers.
There is a lot of sensitizing and educating going on, but the responsibility lies with the districts. There is money within the block -- $15 million for teacher-training -- and I would hope that every district is utilizing some of those training funds for that purpose.
V. Anderson: Related to teacher-training is the availability of aboriginal curriculum and resource materials through the ministry, as well as backup materials for the teachers in their program. What's happening in the area of curriculum development and resource availability for teachers in those areas?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm glad you asked that question. There's $1.5 million in the budget for locally developed first nations curriculum. Also in the budget are first nations awareness staff development grants of $80,000. I can make details of these programs available, should you wish copies. There's little sense in my reading them to you.
V. Anderson: Thank you. I would be interested in, and would appreciate, getting a copy at some time. Is the money for the awareness program available in all schools across the province, or is it limited to aboriginal communities?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funds, available by grant application, are available to all districts.
V. Anderson: You were stressing a while ago that with respect to band schools and schools that concentrate on aboriginal students, federal funding was for status persons living on reserves. What is the situation in urban areas? We have both status and non-status students in the regular public school system in Victoria, Vancouver and other cities around the province. What's the relationship with the school boards in terms of both funding and support to the aboriginal children within those schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: For off-reserve aboriginals -- status or non-status -- the federal government contributes nothing. The province allows an additional amount per aboriginal student. It's a self-identification process. The school boards do the count, and we supply approximately $900 extra per aboriginal child. That will total about $30 million this year. I have targeted that amount; I've set a floor. Boards can spend more than that in matters related to aboriginal instruction, and I believe a small portion of it may be utilized for admin costs. But fundamentally they have to deliver at least that amount for aboriginal instruction; they're free to expend more if they so choose.
V. Anderson: Does that $900 grant apply to status and Metis students? Are they both eligible for that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes. The school boards' identification process involves self-identification of individuals as aboriginal. The count is based on that, and then the incremental funding of $900 per child is provided.
V. Anderson: A key factor in dealing with aboriginal children in city schools is the relationship of the schools to the parents. The development of immigrant students or new Canadian students within the school is dependent on the relationship between the parents and school; it can't be separated. There have been a number of experiments in trying to bring that relationship together. The danger is that we continue to educate, as we have done in the past, the students away from the parents and create difficulties between the parents and the students. If they are new immigrant students or new Canadian students, we teach them in a Canadian cultural system that the parents are not aware of, and therefore we create tensions. We pull the aboriginal student out of the aboriginal system into a different school system. The earlier question about the B.C. Lower Mainland Consortium of School Boards for Successful Settlement pointed this out. Where we have ESL classes for new Canadians, key factors of whether those classes or the educational system are as effective or as efficient as they might be are the settlement services that the report talks about: "Settlement services must be understood to include not only language training, but also reception services and social support for inclusion and integration."
So the stress of this policy is that we can't separate the education that takes place in the schoolroom from the social interrelations with the home. If we do, we're not able to do full education. We realized that if children are hungry, you have to feed them if you're going to give them a good education. Is there some discussion going on between aboriginals in the urban areas and the school boards to
[ Page 11845 ]
achieve support for and understanding of the social and cultural interrelationships that have to take place between the school and the home in order to do the kind of educational process that we really are demanding?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: A home-school coordinator or coordinators could be hired and paid partly out of the $900 per aboriginal student incremental amount. As an example of how bridges could be built, I have been in schools where aboriginal elders were invited into the school to play a role. As I mentioned, at Admiral Seymour they were making an active effort to invite and make welcome aboriginal parents within the system. Whether it's with refugee parents or others, getting them into the school is a challenge. All we can do is continue to strive to teach the children and the teachers to be as sensitive as possible.
[9:15]
In Kamloops, for example, the Interior Indian Friendship Society plays a useful role in this. In addition to aboriginal students going through the regular graduation ceremony at the various high schools, the aboriginal friendship society has a separate grad-recognition evening. Again, in that instance they are providing some outreach, and it's a valuable service. The sensitization of our system to the needs of aboriginal people is key. The sensitization of our employees to aboriginal needs is key.
Another thing that is happening -- and I'm sure you know this -- is that there are a lot of status natives. First, there are a lot of natives regaining status, and then with their status they are returning to reserves and becoming active in their own educational programs, usually in partnership. Kamloops is another fine example. The school district operates a public school at the Chief Louis Centre in Kamloops, Sek'Lep Elementary.Non-aboriginal and aboriginal students attend that school. I think a lot of very good things are happening with respect to the inclusion of aboriginal students.
Again in reference to Kamloops, I've seen a remarkable change since the mid-eighties, when our daughters graduated. At that time, there were four to six aboriginal students graduating with their Dogwood Certificates. This year, there were 57. A great renaissance of learning is happening; a renaissance of their cultures is happening. I also attended a convocation ceremony -- I'm now going beyond K to 12 -- at the powwow grounds in Kamloops on Friday, and saw the first 15 baccalaureate graduates of a program developed as a result of a partnership between SFU and the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society. To his credit, Minister Irwin came out, and we all celebrated.
Success is happening. It has taken a lot of effort by a lot of people. We have to start right at kindergarten or junior kindergarten, and we have to do everything we can to reinforce success and increase sensitivity -- all toward increasing the success of those aboriginal students.
V. Anderson: I want to ask a brief question with regard to the Chinese and Japanese languages and the evaluation through tests at grade 12. Will such evaluations take place so that students who have worked in those programs and used those languages will not be refused entrance to UBC because of its new testing requirements? Can the minister provide some assurance that those students will be recognized for the work they have done? The testing must be done so that students don't lose out in the program; without it, not only does the language go unrecognized, but the credits received by them are not there. This is a very crucial issue to quite a few students.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I answered a similar question from the hon. member's colleague earlier. In the near future, we will announce language policies that will deal with some aspects of provincially examinable languages. I think it is unfortunate that UBC made the move that they did -- without consultation and without the ability of the K-to-12 system to know what they were about to do. I frankly wish they hadn't done it. In my view, there's a better way. I've expressed that view to the university, but I take your point, and we will be doing what we can to make sure that other languages receive the attention they deserve.
V. Anderson: I have another question related to the francophone one. It seems strange to me that whatever government model may eventually be worked out in that regard -- and if I understood what the minister said, there is no discussion going on with the trustees' association -- the trustees in the other schools around the province are going to be directly affected. It would seem unfortunate if there weren't ongoing discussion with the trustees' association as this is being developed, so that there would be interplay rather than reaction after something comes out. Is discussion going on with them in this area at the moment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was brought to my attention some time back, and I'm not sure quite how many years back, that there had been some discussion with the BCSTA on this issue, and they had the opportunity to express their views. It seems to me that until such time as a model is developed and we have some idea of the costs and the boundaries of the model, there's not too much to discuss with them. It's not as though they're being held at arm's length or that there's anything going on that is secret. I believe they are fully aware of the discussions. In terms of bringing them in on a consultative procedure, I would rather the boundaries of the issues be developed first, and then we'll have something to discuss.
L. Stephens: We're down to the last area that needs to be discussed, and that's the area of special needs. Under the former minister, the ministry commissioned a special report; I understand it's been presented to the minister, but nothing public has yet come forward on it. According to the ministry's newsletter, there is $30 million in the 1994-95 budget that is going to be used to develop spending and program priorities which focus primarily on the needs of children with severe behavioural problems. Could the minister elaborate a little more on those programs and what is contemplated or planned for the 1994-95 year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Right from my first school visits last September or October, it was my observation that the single largest issue causing stress in school, burnout, upset parents and upset in parents with children exhibiting severe classroom behaviour was concerns about violence -- violent language, the exposure of other children in the classroom to violence which, if not directed at them, was directed at a teacher, and verbal violence directed at a teacher. All this was having an impact on the other students. I only had to hear this a few times before deciding that we needed a special initiative which would specifically identify this as a problem to be dealt with. The ministry eventually came forward with a suggestion for the $30 million fund, with which notionally we will be able to assist about 5,000 to 6,000 students provincewide -- about 1 percent of our enrolment -- and spend something in the order of $5,000 to $6,000 per student to try to get at and correct the root of the problem. We're in a
[ Page 11846 ]
consultation process right now of finalizing some aspects of the model to be used, and they will be in place and available to the school boards in time for them to do planning for the next school year.
L. Stephens: I take that to mean September 1994.
The whole issue of mainstreaming is probably the number one concern of the classroom teacher, and for good reason. I understand that the ministry is updating the directions and the guidelines for special education. I assume those are what the minister is referring to when he talks about the new policy coming forward for the '94 year. Is that coming forward in September?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are maybe two different issues here. A report has been submitted recently on special needs education. My staff have not yet had the opportunity to brief me on that, and I cannot say at this point in time exactly what policy initiatives might follow.
With respect to the $30 million special initiative for severe behaviour problems, there are draft guidelines out in the system already with respect to how that program will be implemented.
L. Stephens: Okay, I think I've got it now.
The diagnostic facilities for special needs students leave much to be desired in that the assessments sometimes take up to 18 months. Perhaps the minister could speak on that and on whether the ministry has a plan for improving those diagnostic services and assessments for learning-disabled students.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Key to success in this area is better interministerial cooperation. If you recall, hon. member, earlier in estimates I talked about another new initiative, as yet unannounced, where we will have close coordination with other ministries, most specifically Social Services, Attorney General and Health. I believe that if we can get professionals from other ministries into our system, into our schools, then the diagnoses will occur in a more timely fashion. Problems will be recognized at an earlier point, and hence we'll be able to deal with them at an earlier point. We'll also have the right set of resources to apply to the issue in order to help the child and the family at an earlier time. By doing all of that, I hope we will avoid many of the problems that are currently visiting our public system.
L. Stephens: Has there been funding set aside for the 1994-95 year to address some of these changes, other than the $30 million for the severe behavioural disorders that you're speaking of? Is there any money set aside for other initiatives within the special needs area?
[9:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we've probably covered the various budget items, but just to glance down at them, they are: the $30 million, of course; the $3 million targeted for staff development; the additional $2 million for technical aids to the handicapped; and the increase in the interschool program from $2 million to $5 million. We've established a 1-800-number integration support line to allow teachers, paraprofessionals and administrators to get information quickly and effectively about special needs education. Initially on a pilot basis, we will be focusing some of our resources on the interministerial initiatives that I have mentioned.
The educational system as a whole will benefit from having the funds from the other agencies and ministries also focussed on school issues. That would be the funding in total. This, of course, is separate from the regular special needs funding, which is more than $350 million over and above this.
L. Stephens: I think you were alluding to the health and safety aspect of the schools when you were talking about the interministerial initiative that's coming forward to deal with those kinds of issues. We talked about the increasing violence in schools and whether or not the minister has considered involving parents in the school in some way other than the ordinary hot-dog days that they now contribute to. Is there a consideration that parents could be involved on a day-to-day basis in the schools? For instance, in a parents' room portion of the building they would be able to help with other parents to provide homework support to students. They would be able to sit in on their student's classroom from time to time. Does the minister think it would be a useful initiative to involve parents more closely in the education of their children?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that, generally speaking, nothing but good can come from increased parental involvement. There are a few schools where there is a parent room of sorts already. They seem to be at least moderately successful in attracting not a large percentage of parents, but some parents do come in. Individual parents, with the agreement of the teacher, can enter, participate and be in the classroom. Many do volunteer work within the classroom on an ongoing basis, but beyond those and the support of the parent advisory committee.... I make a point of meeting with the parent advisory committee in every district I go into to encourage them to become even more involved in the system. I have also gone out of my way on a number of occasions to support parent and community involvement through community interaction days, trying to lend whatever ability I have to draw in and talk to more parents. All these things are useful, and we will continue to pursue all of them. With respect to building actual parent rooms or allowing those within the plans for schools, there would of course be a modest capital cost associated with it. I personally think it is something we ought to consider, and if we do it and see the cost of schools rise just a tad as a result, I hope that I'll have the member's support on it.
L. Stephens: In any way we can support and encourage parents to become more involved in the education system, the minister certainly does have my support.
The gifted program is one that many people are concerned about as well, and about how much of the budget is allocated to the program. I've had a number of letters from people who tell me that within their school districts, and I'm sure it varies from district to district, some of their gifted children get only an hour a week in extra programming. I wonder if the minister could speak to that a bit, and discuss whether it is going to be a focus of the ministry to try to increase services to the gifted student. How much is allocated, and what form might that service take?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount provincewide for gifted is $7.1 million, which I'm told is perhaps a little less than $300 incremental per identified student, and I believe there is a cap of 2 percent on the number of students who can be counted as gifted in a district.
As I mentioned, in answer to another question, there's at least one district, and there may be others, that don't have gifted programs in place at all, on the philosophic view that
[ Page 11847 ]
all children are gifted. I believe that a significant percentage, not a majority, of dropouts and some severe behaviour problems relate to gifted students who are not recognized or sufficiently challenged.
I had a very touching letter from a parent in Kamloops, who approached me as her MLA. A gifted child with a disability could not write laboriously at producing writing but was brilliant orally -- a straight-A student. Any time additional pressure occurred on this child, the writing production would seize up. Here is a gifted child who was also learning-disabled in this particular area and who was turning into a.... I don't want to say problem, because that's never the right word, but problems were developing in that child's life to the point that -- as the mother said to me -- he now hates school and does not want to go. She showed me his report cards from primary, and there is no doubt the child is very bright.
I think there is a place for gifted programs, and districts should take the time to identify and challenge those children. We have available software, as well as interactive video capability. We can challenge the children at all levels by using individual learning plans. We can push them to do their very best. I think they'll be better for it, and I think the system will be better for it.
L. Stephens: Has the ministry considered targeting funds to gifted students in the same way as other special needs have been targeted?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The gifted funding is within the targeted total, but nowhere within the total special needs have I subtargeted. I have said: "Here are your funds. You must spend at least that amount in your special needs area." There was a great deal of resistance from boards even to go to that step, and there would have been enormous difficulties to go beyond that.
Besides, on philosophical grounds, I do believe that the boards need to make important decisions. They're there to make decisions in the best interests of their parents, to hear the arguments of their parents and to make the final on-the-ground detailed decisions with respect to delivering the program. So I am not inclined to reach within the larger target to establish subtargets.
L. Stephens: I just have a couple of other questions, and I will then yield to my colleague for Richmond Centre.
Do you have figures on employment equity? I assume it's in administration and support services. How much is it costing the Ministry of Education for 1994-95?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I just want to take this occasion to offer a small award to the critic for having asked the best question yet. We have -- count them -- one, two, three, four, five bureaucrats scrambling to find an answer.
At the same time, I also want to add, while I am on my feet, to the ex-critic for Richmond Centre that the questions now must be with respect to Education, not Transportation.
[9:45]
The number has miraculously been recovered from the voluminous data. There is not an equity fund as such, but a gender equity initiative of some $271,000 is built in.
L. Stephens: This is for gender equity within the ministry. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The sum I just gave was in grant money going out to the system. I'm just checking to see if there is either equity money or gender parity money within the ministry.
I've just got a breakdown of the gender equity funds: $56,000 is within the ministry and $215,000 is for field initiatives in gender equity.
L. Stephens: For a minute there, it was almost....
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You thought you were going to get a big cheque.
L. Stephens: No, I wasn't going to get the cheque; the taxpayers were, perhaps.
Another question concerns an issue that came up in Richmond and, I understand, a number of other districts: the practice of beginning earlier in the morning so that the school day ends at 12:30 on Friday afternoon. I'm sure the minister is familiar with districts that allow this. Does the minister agree with this practice? Should there be some changes?
It's my view that we should be lengthening the school day and the school year, not shortening them. A number of jurisdictions around the world with which we are competing have 240 days of instruction, and our 190 days is quite measly by comparison. In my opinion, it is not in the best interests of the educational system for districts and schools to shorten the days even further.
I'd like to know how the minister feels about this particular issue.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With regard to districts or schools within districts that are lengthening some days in order to shorten another day, first, this is a decision to be made within the district. Second, we must keep in mind that the total minutes of instruction in the year stay the same. In fact, the argument has been made to me that if 20 minutes or so are added to each of four days, those 20 minutes are used more effectively in longer blocks than they would be otherwise on the Friday afternoon.
I have not gone out of my way to encourage this practice, because there's also the public perception to be considered, and that would be that the amount of education in the year had dropped, even though it hadn't. I don't think we need to do things in education that perhaps encourage the public to draw a wrong conclusion. Districts have put forward a variety of reasons why this can be a good idea, and, as I've said, I have not gone out of my way to encourage them.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
L. Stephens: One final question: would the minister like to see an extended school year? Because of the initiatives coming forward in terms of increasing choices for students in schools, do we need to begin to expand the school year to make sure that certain kinds of education, particularly foundation studies, are being delivered? Could the minister share with us his views on that subject as well?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the potential I am pursuing is, again, year-round schooling. That would allow a young man or woman who, in consultation with their family and teachers, decided to accelerate their own education, to take fewer vacations and follow various tracks in order to graduate six months -- or whatever they decide -- earlier. But at the present time there is not under consideration a movement to increase the number of instruction hours in a year.
[ Page 11848 ]
L. Stephens: I promise this is the last one. That really wasn't what I was referring to. The multi-track system simply allows for continuous intake, which is another term for it, as opposed to expanding the number of days or the number of hours in the day that we deliver educational services. That was what I was really asking for the minister's opinion on. Do we need to have expanded days or hours in the day in order to compete with countries who have 240 days of instruction? If we keep expanding the number of courses in our school system, something is going to get left out or shortened. There are only so many hours in the day that teachers can teach, so we have to choose whether to expand the day and the school year or to eliminate some of the courses and programs in the school system. I would like to put to the minister whether or not he would view adding to the school day or school year more desirable than cutting back on some of the programs that are delivered in the schools?
F. Gingell: It was six days a week when I was in school.
The Chair: Ah, those were the days.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Well, I'm not sure; look what it did for him.
There is no policy review occurring with respect to increasing either the length of the day or the number of days in the year. In my earlier response, I said that there was no consideration of increasing the hours of instruction in the year. I know that other countries have far more days. In Japan now they are typically attending school three out of four Saturdays. However, I also found out from talking to the Minister of Education for the prefecture of Oshima that they're actually in the process of cutting back on the number of days and hours of instruction as the weekend phenomenon starts to gain hold in Japan. A few years from now, Japanese students will probably be going to school five days a week instead of six, and their total number of days of instruction will be coming down toward ours.
It is my understanding that the actual hours and days of instruction have not decreased all that much for several decades now. I've....
F. Gingell: The days have gotten shorter.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, that's only because you're growing older. The day has actually stayed the same length.
An Hon. Member: You had better say who you're talking to.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those previous comments were directed to the member for Delta South.
So there is no consideration of it at this time, although you are aware that I have given school districts the ability to cancel one or both community interaction days. Should they cancel those days, they revert to instruction days.
D. Symons: I have just a few questions. It is indeed a pleasure to hear such a serious topic as education being discussed here in a very easygoing manner. It makes it easier to carry on the conversation.
Having been a classroom teacher for 30 years, I'd just like to make a few comments on some of the last questions and responses. I did find it interesting in high school that about every ten years, when the textbooks were worn out, they would revise a course. Often they added new things, but I didn't see the number of instruction hours getting longer to accommodate that. At the end of the year, it often became a bit of a go as to whether you were going to complete the whole course and get through the teaching process. I think that balance between time and course requirements is something that must be addressed.
I just want to go back one step, which is going to end up being the reverse order that I wrote my topics down because of the way they were previously discussed. On gender equity -- or parity; I forget which term applies to the ministry -- you said there was $215,000 in grant money going out to the system. I'm wondering if you could give me a figure to indicate what equity payments might mean in moving the wage scales closer together. It would seem that $215,000 among the number of female employees throughout the province.... I assume that would be non-teaching staff, because teachers have had gender equity for as far back as I can remember in the education system. Is there a figure that that would represent? It would seem to be a very small part of 1 percent, I would suspect.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funds that I mentioned are training, sensitivity and awareness dollars. We're not speaking about pay equity in that instance; it is strictly gender equity on other issues. They have to absorb within whatever their block increment was any pay equity changes that have been made or policies that have occurred in school districts.
D. Symons: I misunderstood. I thought this was the government putting some money in to help government employees. I believe you are doing something along that line, but this is outside of that.
Community interaction days seem to be an experiment that didn't go over too well. I gather the Richmond School Board, in evaluating their community interaction days, felt that they could have better spent that time. In fact, they wrote a letter to the minister saying: "Perhaps in the future, targeted funding toward a strategic goal of communication will accomplish many of the same positive results, without the backlash that we have seen in the Richmond School District. To quote many parents: 'It is just another two days off'."
You seem to be giving the districts the option of how they're going to use those days for the next year. Has there been any further revision, or is that where it stands at this time?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I changed the regulations to allow one or both of the community interaction days to revert to standard instruction days if there was an agreement struck between the parents, the teachers and the board.
D. Symons: Thank you. I want to go back to a problem that I'm sure has been canvassed by the critic and other members, because it relates to their particular school districts -- the issue of classrooms. I would like to ask some questions regarding Richmond, because we have the problem of classroom demand which I think is endemic throughout the province.
[10:00]
We've had some errors in projections in Richmond over the years because we've had a terrific increase in population due greatly to immigration. The school district did not anticipate in one way the fact that immigration was going to bring into the school more secondary students or older students. Because of real estate prices in Richmond, new people coming in are generally people who were further
[ Page 11849 ]
along in years, so their children are not toddlers anymore. A beginning family couldn't afford the housing in Richmond. We found that while they were projecting shortages in elementary schools, it seems to be junior high and secondary schools that have some of the shortages. We have 237 portables in Richmond. Richmond has the greatest proportion of portables relative to the total district enrolment of any district in British Columbia, so we're in really bad shape there.
Steveston high school has an official capacity of 875 students, and we have enrolled approximately 1,550 students in that school; it changes daily. These are some of the problems facing the Richmond School District. To enable us to move quickly here, I'm lumping a lot of this together so I can present the whole problem and you can expound on it. Richmond, in presenting to the ministry their capital plans and giving their priorities, finds that the ministry often doesn't take the priorities that the district gives you. You have put a dollar figure on capital expenditures for the Richmond School District for this fiscal year, but it seems that the priorities Richmond School District has put forward -- new construction, for example -- don't match the priorities that come back from the ministry. If you asked the district to prioritize the projects within that district, I'm wondering why the ministry doesn't give more weight to the district's priorities rather than the other ones the ministry seems to set.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Given the tightness of funds this year, Richmond ranked relatively high in terms of funding provided. I know the challenges there, having visited a school and, as I commented at the time, being squeezed through the corridors like a toothpick. It was very crowded; there's no doubt about it. We sent out our list and asked the Richmond board to look at it, to contemplate the priorities of the past and see whether they wanted to do any trading of priorities. We also identified to them that whatever they have in the way of reserve should be used up at this time. They have responded to us, asking that we make a number of substitutions. I will be informing the Richmond board, along with all the other boards, within a week of the final capital decisions. I have paid close attention to Richmond's submissions and have weighed the requests they have put in front of me.
D. Symons: My final question deals with the funding of capital projects within Richmond. I gather from what you've said that Richmond has not yet been given the go-ahead on any capital projects for this year. These announcements are still to be made. When you make the announcements based on Richmond's and the ministry's submissions, will that mean that they can go ahead immediately to let tenders out and start those projects, or are they going to have to wait until Treasury Board or B.C. 21 comes up with the funds? Are those funds going to be hard funds once the decision you say is going to come in a couple of weeks is made?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That is going to vary on a case-by-case basis. Some projects will be ready to apply for and receive final approvals in fairly short order. There will no doubt be others on which there will be obstacles to overcome or other problems to iron out, and the final approval will come later on in the fiscal year. Within about a week, as I say, Richmond will have the list of capital projects that, in the instance of minors, are approved, and they can proceed on them immediately. In the instance of majors, they know the process. This is a list of projects that will be considered for final approval in the fiscal year. They will then apply for final approval when they're ready on a project-by-project basis, and we will try to turn that around as quickly as we can.
Vote 21 approved.
Vote 22: ministry operations, $3,781,643,000 -- approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:06 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]