1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 7
[ Page 13693 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like today to welcome two good friends to the precinct. They're actually carrying on their learning during a non-instructional day in the school system. Please make Margaret Scott and her son Graeme Scott welcome.
D. Symons: Seated in the gallery today is John Chisholm from Winnipeg, who is the brother of my legislative assistant Alice Hughes. Would the House please join me in welcoming him.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members of the House to welcome a group from the Campbell River Christian School, who are down visiting with us today. They're in the gallery.
M. Lord presented a bill intituled Community Land Trust Act.
M. Lord: In the United States, community-based land trusts have been extremely successful in conserving millions of hectares of regionally important, privately held lands. In the United Kingdom, organizations such as the National Trust and English Heritage have been successful in preserving land and buildings for the benefit of the community in perpetuity. No comparable structure exists in British Columbia, yet there are numerous examples where communities have rallied on an ad hoc basis to preserve lands of regional and provincial significance. Examples are Jedediah Island, Glencoe Cove in Victoria, Gowlland Range on the Saanich Peninsula, Somenos Marsh in Duncan, Neck Point in Nanaimo and Macdonald Wood in my riding of Comox Valley.
This bill proposes a flexible system of charitable community-based land trusts, with a provincial land trust to provide advocacy and support functions for the community-based groups. Representatives of community land trusts would have majority control of the provincial trust and would direct its operations. The functions of the community land trusts are modelled on the United Kingdom's National Trust legislation.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LEAKS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier advise this House whether the private investigator who was hired to determine the source of leaks from the government has concluded his report, and if so, what his findings were?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I cannot advise the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: Is the Premier saying that the report is not complete? If so, can he tell us when he is expecting it to be completed, and will he advise this House when it is completed?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I repeat the answer I gave to the first question.
MLAs' COMPENSATION
C. Tanner: This is to the Premier. On Saturday, the 22nd, B.C. Liberals became the first B.C. political party to call for the abolition of the MLA pension plan.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order! Would hon. members please come to order.
C. Tanner: The Premier has an estimated pension of $1.3 million, while the leader of the Reform Party will receive a pension of almost $1,000,000. Taxpayers are fed up with this year-to-year topping-up of the MLA pension. Will the Premier today commit to immediately abolishing this gold-plated MLA pension plan?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would advise the member to go back and read the throne speech. It is good reading.
C. Tanner: I have a supplemental for the Premier, but I would recommend that he read his own throne speech. There is no mention there of abolishing the MLA pension plan.
But perhaps he can do this for the taxpayers of this province. The MLA severance package, quietly worked out by the Socreds and the NDP during the dying days of the Socred regime, is another perk which needs to be scrapped. Both the NDP and the Reform members stood idly by while their defeated and retiring colleagues left with their fists full of money.
Will the Premier show some respect today for the taxpayers of British Columbia and immediately scrap this obscene severance package for MLAs?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am sure the member would like to concentrate on making sure the B.C. economy stays the number one economy in Canada, with 40 percent of the new jobs in this country during the last three and a half years created here in British Columbia by the private sector working in partnership with the government. I'm sure the member will change his mind about being a Liberal who wants to go to a two-tier health care system. He can see what we said in the throne speech, which is that we are going to be bringing forward proposals that will deal with the issues of pensions and severance. The member should realize that we have quite a few weeks to go in the session, and that we will be dealing with these issues in due course.
[ Page 13694 ]
[2:15]
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: I think we already are, in Abbotsford.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
My question is to the Minister of Social Services. If a person owned an expensive automobile and was having trouble paying their bills or meeting family expenses, most reasonable people would sell the car, buy a cheaper one or perhaps even take a bus. Why shouldn't the same standards apply to people wanting social assistance? Why shouldn't someone owning an expensive automobile be required to sell it and use the proceeds before going on social assistance?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know this is not the opportunity for government members to ask questions of the opposition, so I'll just muse. First, I wonder what kind of cars the hon. member sells over there. Second, this policy about social assistance recipients being able to own a car has been in place for a decade, and I believe the hon. member was part of the government a decade ago. No, I guess not a decade ago -- six or seven years ago. The third thing I wonder about is whether he makes his own constituents sell cars. When they're ready to go to work, how will they get there when they live outside of Dawson Creek? That might be a good question for him to answer.
Our government is moving people from welfare to work by the thousands. We're doing that with the Skills Now program of $200 million over the last two years. That's what we should be doing, not worrying about people's vehicles and taking away all their supports when they're ready and able to go to work.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker. A supplemental to the Premier.
Interjections.
An Hon. Member: He's an easier target, isn't he?
J. Weisgerber: Yes. [Laughter.]
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Third Party please put his question.
J. Weisgerber: My question to the Premier: cash-strapped students can't get a student loan if they have an automobile worth more than $5,000. Why, then, would the Premier require a different set of standards for people going on social assistance than for students who need an automobile to get to classes? Why does the Premier support this double standard: one for cash-strapped students, the other for people on social assistance?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank goodness the leader of the Reform Party has the jaw of George Chuvalo. He just gets up after being knocked down and keeps asking questions. That's good for him to....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's right. Are you trying to tell me something?
It's very ironic that the leader of the Reform Party and the leader of the Liberal Party said that the $800 million that's going to be cut out of higher education by the federal Liberals wasn't deep enough. I don't think they're representing the student he's talking about at all. We're going to make sure that the federal government -- the Liberal government -- goes back and re-examines that foolish decision to cut higher education for the kind of students the leader of the Reform Party is trying to defend. And he wants to cut any chance of those students being able to go to higher education. What rank hypocrisy!
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
A. Warnke: My question is actually for the Premier. In case he's forgotten, two days ago I actually suggested that there was going to be a $317 million unfunded liability in the WCB. Guess what has happened? Yesterday the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour finally found the courage to table the WCB's annual report. And guess what, hon. Speaker? The unfunded liability had grown by 66 percent, to $317 million. Just last Friday the WCB report with respect to gold-plated benefits provided to WCB executives states that the WCB may not have consistently observed the Income Tax Act in dealing with Miss Munro. Therefore, will the Premier today ask Revenue Canada to investigate whether the WCB has violated income tax law in granting $88,000 to Miss Munro?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice for the minister, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister initiated the discussion around welfare recipients who own a vehicle, and its value. She initiated that discussion. Does the minister personally support restricting welfare to individuals who have made every reasonable attempt to minimize the cost to B.C. taxpayers? If so, why doesn't she make a commitment right now that in order to get welfare, you cannot own a vehicle with a value in excess of $10,000?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This year British Columbians will be receiving $500 million less from the federal Liberals in support of social programs. At the end of 1997, British Columbians will be receiving $1.3 billion less. Yes, our government is taking that hole cut in our pocket very seriously. We're making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent on those who are in need. At the same time, we're doing it in a fashion that moves people
[ Page 13695 ]
from welfare to work. We're doing that daily, and we're doing that weekly, with support programs that are already in place. And it's working. We want to make sure that those who need to temporarily access income assistance have the ability to move to a job. We're doing that. In the meantime, we're making sure that every aspect of a dollar spent is done in a proper fashion. We're constantly reviewing the income assistance system to make sure that it goes to those most in need.
COST OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
R. Neufeld: The minister states that her government is working toward moving people off welfare and into jobs. We have the best economy, according to your records, of any province in Canada. You say that you've created 67,000 new jobs this past year. Can the minister then explain to this House why welfare rolls have increased by over 100,000 recipients in just three years, and why the costs for welfare have gone up by $900 million in that same period of time? If you are moving people from welfare to jobs, can you please explain those statistics to us?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it's kind of ironic from the party that voted against Skills Now, the initiative that actually moves people from welfare to work, but I guess consistency isn't required by the opposition. Because our economy is so strong, people are moving here from other parts of Canada. Merely people moving from other parts of Canada increases our population by the size of Saanich in each and every year. Some of those people need temporary assistance from income assistance. You'll see from the statistics on unemployment insurance that because of the cuts that the Chretien and Mulroney governments made to unemployment insurance, those who are temporarily out of work no longer have unemployment insurance coverage. Those two factors are contributing to the increase.
But I want to tell you that the number of people requiring income assistance is on the decline. We are going to ensure that each and every person has the opportunity for training and for work in this province.
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENT AND SALE OF LAND REGISTRY SYSTEM TO RUSSIA
W. Hurd: It appears that that icon of ideology, the godfather of the NDP, Bob Williams, has not gone quietly into retirement. Mr. Williams has been paid $51,000 to promote the sale of a land registry system to St. Petersburg, Russia -- of all places. There are those who would say that Mr. Williams has more affinity for the previous land registry system in the Soviet Union. I wonder if the Premier can justify how Bob Williams can have two opportunities at the trough: once as the head of the Crown corporations secretariat, and now as a high-priced consultant for the Premier's own B.C. Trade office.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, the world is getting stranger and stranger. We have the pauper over here from Surrey-White Rock criticizing the millionaire who is trying to take free enterprise to Russia. Not only are their questions getting curiouser and curiouser, but I just don't understand where they're coming from ideologically. Why wouldn't they want private property to be secure in Russia and in other countries that are trying to adopt the free enterprise system and introduce the concept of private property to their people? I think he should be encouraging rather than discouraging that.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Maybe it's speculation, but the opposition is convinced that the only failed NDP candidate and past NDP minister who hasn't been offered employment by the government is Sam Wagar, the unfortunate candidate from Matsqui.
Mr. Williams is poised to bill the B.C. taxpayers another $30,000 for efforts that have no benefits to the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. What became of the Premier's election promise of no special deals for friends and insiders, when Bob Williams is double-dipping during the course of this administration?
Hon. M. Harcourt: With the Leader of the Opposition, who should not be having his troops throw stones on the issue of using people who are close to him, I think I should have the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock go and speak to his leader about using people in situations that are not acceptable to the taxpayers of this province.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I'm asking leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think we should recognize two people I see in the gallery today. I arrived late; maybe they were here earlier. They are two members of the Columbia River Treaty Committee who have worked very hard on the Columbia Basin Trust. I would like to introduce Josh Smienk, the chair of that committee, who is from Central Kootenay Regional District, and Garry Merkel with the Ktunaxa people.
REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Real Estate Act. The amendments are primarily of a consumer protection nature. The major amendment would extend the marketing requirements of the act to the sale of undivided or shared interests in land and buildings. It would put such developments on an even footing with similar developments, such as subdivided land, condominiums and
[ Page 13696 ]
cooperatives, by requiring that developers of such interests obtain local government approval and distribute a disclosure statement to prospective purchasers.
In addition to tightening and extending the marketing provisions of the act, the bill makes other consumer protection amendments to the provisions of the act regulating real estate salespersons. The amendments will require that persons hired to collect strata fees or short-term rental moneys be licensed, and will require that real estate salespeople disclose who they represent in a real estate transaction.
Other amendments will tighten the handling of moneys by licensees by requiring that trust funds remain within the province and by regulating the payment of moneys to third parties.
Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I also have reports to table. The first is the report of guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with section 56 of the Financial Administration Act.
I also have the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with section 15(2) of that act. Finally, I have the record of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994. This record was previously delivered to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 3 of the amended Unclaimed Money Act.
M. Farnworth: This petition calls on the government to protect the level of funding available to mental health recipients, to increase the level of funding for respite care and to protect health care funding in general.
Hon. G. Clark: In the House I call Committee of Supply B, the Attorney General's estimates; and in Committee A, I call the Ministry of Education estimates.
[2:30]
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 17: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
C. Serwa: As I listen to the Attorney General's estimates.... I missed the first day in the presentation, and we seem to be bouncing all over the place. So I assume that if we're going to bounce, I'll bounce as well, and I'll probably touch on some of the subjects we've looked at before.
I may just start with some concerns about citations with respect to motor vehicle, moving vehicle or parking fines -- offences under the Motor Vehicle Act. One of the concerns I have is the amount of court time -- it follows a question I asked earlier -- that is taken up with lawyers who bring their client to court, and if the officer is not present, their plea is "not guilty" and they are going to contest it; if the officer is present, they plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court. What this does, of course, is take staff time from their particular job, and it doesn't allow the force to do the work it's supposed to do. We appear to be undermanned in the police force in the province at this time, in any event. So there's some concern in my heart for that. What is behind that, and what are your instructions to the court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's concern is that on occasion a witness in the form of a police officer may not be present at the time that an individual is scheduled to appear in court. It does happen on occasion; police officers are exceedingly busy. And I acknowledge that this happens on occasion, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it. The remedy is for scheduling of police officers' times to be organized as effectively as possible in each jurisdiction, so that the police officer can be there to be a witness. While acknowledging that it happens, it's not a common occurrence, I think it's fair to say.
C. Serwa: It appears from the police.... I was speaking to some individuals from the Saanich police, not too long ago, on this particular matter. Certainly it's a major concern of the RCM Police in Kelowna. What happens, too, is that the court will be scheduled, then for some reason or other -- perhaps a legal manoeuvre -- it's rescheduled. What you are doing is repetitively taking staff time for a purpose that doesn't come to fruition.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would be kind enough to tell me whether, on this point, he's still continuing to talk about traffic offences, or is he now talking about a wider range?
C. Serwa: Primarily traffic offences, relatively minor traffic offences.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The hearing date is scheduled; it's known to the person who is accused of violating the Motor Vehicle Act. The witness is advised, and for the most part -- in this case, the police officer who has issued the citation, as the member referred to it, the ticket -- shows up. On occasion, that doesn't happen. With motor vehicle infractions I don't think the issue of legal manoeuvring to arrange for an alternative court date is a problem. That may occur on occasion in non-motor-vehicle actions -- Criminal Code charges -- but I don't think that's the case with motor vehicle ones.
C. Serwa: I'll have to accept the minister's explanation on that. Perhaps it's the annoyance factor that I hear about. I'm certainly not confident of the numbers, but I do hear enough about it, and there are some legitimate concerns.
One of the other aspects with respect to motor vehicles, while I'm on that particular topic, is the licensing of drivers. I know that the minister is very concerned.... Oh, that goes to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm sorry about that. I would like to have talked to you about that one,
[ Page 13697 ]
because I know the minister's particular concern with respect to highway safety, and the concern in that area. I think that things have to be done there.
One concern that affects us in the Okanagan -- and it has affected many British Columbians throughout the interior -- is native blockades. In particular, close to home, is the blockade of the Apex road. At that point in time, we were treating British Columbians substantially differently. In that particular case, what does happen is that it's an opportunity to negotiate. I think that one of the earlier negotiations resulted in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways building, or committing to build, access roads to develop band land. In the last particular situation, it resulted in some sort of another group or committee that is responsible for determining or making a further environmental assessment and employing a number of native people. The third time -- it was simply threatened -- was because the government had not contacted and consulted with the native people on the loan guarantees that the government has made to Apex.
What is the minister's and the ministry's position on illegal blockades? I'm quite confident that if a non-native blockaded a road in an effort to do something, justice would be swift and effective.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are often very complex legal issues around some of these blockades -- it's fair to say that's particularly true on the road through the Penticton Indian band land west of Penticton. The practice of the RCMP -- because it's almost always in RCMP jurisdictions that these events occur -- is to attempt to negotiate a resolution to the issues. That's been the practice whether it's the railway blockades between Prince Rupert and Prince George, the Fraser Valley railway blockade last year or other blockades. The use of negotiation and discussion as a tactic by the RCMP is one that I endorse. It's a more effective long-term solution than sending the cavalry in -- coming in, but using immediate force without any discussion. We want to minimize these problems. The current practice and approach of the RCMP, I believe, is the best one.
C. Serwa: I would like to ask the minister if the same latitude and tolerance would be exhibited to myself. If I have a section 6 road -- I believe it's section 6 under the Highway Act -- where government has not gazetted that particular road and it goes through a piece of property that I may own, for example, and I decide that I want the ministry to put up new fences or something like that, would you have the same latitude, patience and tolerance? Am I to stand here and believe that the RCMP wouldn't correct the scene in a very hasty manner and that there would be a negotiating opportunity? What I'm trying to establish here is this: do we have a dual standard for natives and non-natives in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The general answer to the member's question is yes.
The civil disobedience policy of the criminal justice branch, which I happen to have in my hand -- this is instruction to Crown counsel; that's what the policy does -- says in part: "When Crown counsel are consulted, they should encourage the police to exercise discretion in selecting an appropriate response for each factual situation, while ensuring that the general public is not unduly inconvenienced." So it's a question of massaging the solution and of trying to negotiate a resolution. Sometimes that may not be possible, and a more significant response is necessary. But in the very early going, this is the way the police respond. This is consistent with the charging policy of the criminal justice branch.
C. Serwa: I've just one last question on that. What I'm hearing is that regardless of the status of the road -- whether it's a road gazetted by the province with the right-of-way owned by the province or, for example, a section 6 road where the travelling public has only the right of access or the right to travel on the road and where the land that the roadbed actually lies on is not Crown -- you make no exception for that. If, for example, there was some reason to blockade the Lions Gate Bridge or the First Narrows Bridge or something like that, it would make no difference to the direction or the latitude or the mandate of the police.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The words I read out would apply to the Lions Gate Bridge: "...while ensuring that the general public is not unduly inconvenienced." I suspect that there would be some inconvenience if the Lions Gate Bridge were blockaded.
[2:45]
C. Serwa: I have a few questions, one note and an observation. I'm going to talk briefly with respect to the gun control legislation that the minister's government has supported. The minister has also supported the federal gun control legislation. I note that there was an article in the paper not too long ago that Florida had experienced a 29 percent drop in homicides since it eased restrictions on law-abiding residents carrying concealed weapons. Apparently a number of states -- approximately 20 states -- are actually easing restrictions on restricted weapons.
We're not asking for that, necessarily, but the reality is that what we're doing is disarming the public. Good, bad or indifferent, Canada has gone on a different road than the United States has with respect to restricted weapons. But we appear to be going on an even more severe road with the registration requirement for shotguns and hunting rifles.
Obviously it's a high-profile issue. Somehow, somewhere, someone has been able to convince primarily the urban public -- who perhaps have never used a firearm and who are apprehensive of the utilization of a firearm -- that violent crime and firearms go hand in hand; if we eliminate firearms, we eliminate violence in society. There is obviously no connection there whatsoever. Switzerland, for example, has compulsory military service, and rifles are kept; the people are not violent by their particular nature. So there's no real connection there. But it seems like a very convenient one, and it's popular in the urban centres.
I guess I have difficulty understanding the minister's position in that he represents North Island, which is a remote area. I'm confident that there are many sportsmen in that particular area who are also concerned about the path that we're going on. It's not an unusual path, for some reason, and I understand that. Perhaps it's driven by the police for their particular concerns and for their own safety.
I note, too, that the use of pepper spray, or mace, is illegal. Those in society that are least able to defend themselves physically -- certainly women in society -- are denied any
[ Page 13698 ]
opportunity whatsoever to defend themselves. I fail to understand why we're running on this particular road and taking away means of self-defence and means of protection from citizens who are being victimized. With restricted weapons, a permit to carry.... There were always what were called "purse guns." It's a term for barrel lengths four inches or shorter, and that has gone away.
Perhaps the minister could elaborate on the reasons for this support of the registration of non-restricted weapons. I'm not talking about AK-47s or any of the other semi-automatic military types of weapons, because I, too, have concerns -- although there are a number of collectors that like them. Perhaps the minister could rationalize the reasoning for their support of the current legislation before the federal government.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It really isn't part of these estimates discussions. This debate belongs in front of the federal parliamentary committee, and the member knows that. Obviously, we have the responsibility of enforcing whatever the Parliament of Canada determines is the appropriate course of action to take.
In respect of the gun control legislation, over the last few years we have limited most of our comments to more technical issues. This year I was drawn into the discussion, as is inevitable for provincial Attorneys General. I have not been out crusading for the legislation; I have just responded to questions when they have been posed. On behalf of the government, at the federal-provincial meeting I indicated that we had concerns about some elements of the legislation. In particular, we had some concerns about the cost and the potential bureaucracy that could be developed around a registration scheme. However, having made those comments, we basically support the position taken by the Canadian federation of police chiefs, and more recently by the Canadian association of police officers, who have indicated their support for the bill if certain amendments are made. The amendments proposed by the police officers at their meeting a few weeks ago make a lot of sense to me.
We are not in a position to shape the legislation. That's something the parliamentary committee will do, and I would urge the member and anyone else who is interested in the topic to make representations to them, preferably in writing, given the interest and the ability of the committee to hear people. But certainly it's worthwhile to write to the committee with any views that people may have.
I'm not going to get into a debate here about the pros or cons of gun control -- it's the wrong forum -- other than to say that I think we have to avoid moving in the direction that the Americans have moved, where law-abiding citizens feel a need to carry a gun with them for personal safety. That's not the kind of society that I want to be part of. In this country we have done very well, so far, at avoiding that American disease -- the notion of the alleged right to bear arms. We have a different culture here, and we have to do whatever we can to continue to resist the Americanization of this country, particularly with respect to its attitude toward violence and its casual attitude towards weapons. So I am not going to engage in a debate.
The member is correct; I generally support the legislation. I have some concerns. I share the concerns raised by the police officers, and I am going to continue to work to make sure that the scheme they finally do settle on is one that isn't costly or bureaucratic to legitimate gun owners.
C. Serwa: It's interesting to note that the police across Canada are in favour of eliminating guns. I can understand that, because not too long ago I went to the unveiling of a memorial plaque in the Okanagan where an officer lost his life; he was shot, and died in hospital. So it's a serious concern.
The reality is that they are not doing as they say. For example, I imagine that in British Columbia and across Canada they are moving away from the .38 special and have gone, with request, to the 9 mm, which is a cartridge of very superior ballistic design. It has more penetrating power, more shocking or killing power, and will also travel a greater distance. The use of that weapon has negative implications for the public in case an officer draws his gun and fires that gun in the utilization of service. I presume that not only will the officers be able to use that, but individuals in the security field, whether they're Loomis people or otherwise, will also carry this higher-powered cartridge. I ask the minister if the authorization for the 9 mm has been made in the province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we've passed an order-in-council authorizing the 12 municipal departments to convert, if they choose, to the semi-automatic.
C. Serwa: So we're going from a double-action revolver to a semi-automatic with a ten-shot clip, rather than a six-shot rotary cylinder, and an incredible ability to put out bullets. There are some concerns there. There's just a little shred of hypocrisy, perhaps, in the whole scenario where: "We're capable because we're trained, and the rest of you are not trained." I have my concerns, because ultimately public safety is going to depend on the public at large -- not only the criminal element but also the ability of individuals to defend themselves. I don't think that we can possibly provide enough in the way of police force, and we will always have aberrations in human behaviour. Maybe they're not simply aberrations, but a certain percentage of our citizens tend to be violent in their behaviour -- whatever causes that. I don't think we can ignore that, and the reality is prevalent; therefore, certainly, the concern of law and order....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: I hear the member from Prince George anxiously awaiting the opportunity to throw some soft blows your way.
Of concern is a minimum penalty, under section 85 of the Criminal Code, for those who are convicted of a robbery -- a criminal offence, a violent act -- who are armed, whether it's with a knife, for example, or with a restricted or non-restricted weapon. It appears, though, that through the plea bargaining process no one ever serves this minimum time. It seems to be plea-bargained away, and those criminals who use firearms in the course of committing their crimes go scot-free anyway. They've got nothing to lose: they don't happen to have an FAC that you can take away; they don't have a permit to carry that you can take away. All they have is a restricted weapon that they used in the course of a crime, and it appears that there is no penalty that is utilized -- certainly in this province and probably across Canada. What are your instructions to the Crown prosecutors with respect to that?
[ Page 13699 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the simplest way of answering the question is to read from the Crown Counsel Policy Manual. This was last updated in the middle of last year; it has been in existence for some years before that. This is with reference to section 85:
"No stay of proceedings or withdrawals shall be directed by Crown counsel on any charge under section 85 of the Criminal Code unless approval has been obtained from regional or deputy regional Crown counsel. Where there is a substantial likelihood of conviction on the section 85 charge, as well as on the substantive indictable offense, both charges should ordinarily be prosecuted so that the mandatory consecutive jail term of one year is imposed by the court upon conviction for section 85. Where a stay of proceedings is directed on a section 85 charge, the reasons should be noted in the prosecution file."
That's the full policy.
C. Serwa: It's certainly a significant concern, because sportsmen throughout the province see what appears to be a double standard, where those who are utilizing weapons on a criminal basis have certainly been evading the federal criminal legislation, which I thought should have been mandatory with respect to the sentencing of somebody who utilized a weapon in the commission of a crime.
To change the topic just slightly, the public at large is also very concerned about the judiciary. I recognize the third arm of government and the independence of the judiciary, but I also understand the influence of the Attorney General ministry and the Attorney General on sentencing. Recently a judge handed down a $750 fine to a person on their third impaired driving conviction in two years. That doesn't seem to be reasonable at all. When we're finished talking about firearms and the potential danger, we kill many more people in traffic accidents -- some are incidents, some are genuine accidents. But in the case of a drinking driver.... I remember the ads where the individual goes to the bar and has three or four drinks and then decides they've had too much and hands their keys to someone to drive them home. That doesn't happen, because the first thing to go is their judgement. If they're going to hand the keys over to anyone, they'd have to do so before they start to drink.
[3:00]
As a society -- or perhaps through our legislation -- we've been unduly tolerant with respect to those who drink and drive, and repetitively. So what we have now are individuals who don't have a valid driver's licence and still drive. There appears to be nothing that your ministry through legislation can do to prevent that. Certainly there is a great hazard to the travelling public, a great safety concern. What does the minister propose? Or what has he done to discourage drinking and driving by imposing more severe penalties on those who drive and drink?
I recognize that some of the legislation with respect to impounding vehicles at the roadside is very good, regardless of who the owner of the vehicle is. If the owner of the vehicle gives permission to someone, then I think the owner is obviously going to have to bear the responsibility. It may be very difficult to bear; nevertheless, we're going to have to get some of that under control.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had this discussion the other day. It's not a criticism of the member, but there are two sets of estimates going on at the same time and everybody can't be everywhere, and I acknowledge that. We did have a fairly extensive discussion about that issue the other day, and I made the point that the prohibitions or the consequences for impaired driving are governed by two statutes: one is the Criminal Code, which is the responsibility of the federal Parliament, and the other is the Motor Vehicle Act, which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways. So the law that establishes the range of penalties is, in fact, not within my jurisdiction. All I get to do is enforce these laws that are in other jurisdictions.
Having said that, the Crown takes a tough position on drinking and driving and we seek severe penalties when they are appropriate. The policy, again, is tough in this respect. I'm not going to comment on any one particular case; it's inappropriate for me to do that. So I won't make any reference to the first part of the member's comments. But I think it's important that all of us, in every way we can, continue to make clear to the public that drinking and driving is not tolerable, that it's something we should not tolerate in our society. There are some initiatives that the member knows about that are coming from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which will further support the notion that this is an intolerable state. Hopefully, one of these days we will get through to people on this issue, although we have made good progress over the last few years, I think it's fair to say.
I think it's fair to say that the former government, of which the member was a part, over the years brought in legislation amending the Motor Vehicle Act which strengthened the sanctions as well. I remember one debate in this House very close upon the death of the son-in-law of the member for New Westminster. We unanimously passed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act which strengthened the sanctions. We need to continue to do that, and this government is continuing on the work that the member's government started some years ago.
C. Serwa: I'd like to talk a bit about drugs and their involvement in crime. I recognize that this is probably federal legislation as well, but it's certainly of significant concern. Recently, there was a court case where an individual was fined $1,500 for trafficking in about $11,000 worth of cocaine. We hear of extensive forays by the RCMP, major investigations into the growing of marijuana, for example, and a very, very large.... I suppose it's the largest cash crop in British Columbia now. It was the largest cash crop in California, then in Oregon and Washington, and now I presume it's the largest cash crop in British Columbia. This is one aspect of it, with respect to drugs and penalties for those who produce and traffic in drugs.
The other concern is the role of drugs in crime. I don't think there's a community in the province that isn't affected, certainly with minor crime -- breaking and entering and that sort of thing -- on the basis of drugs. What is the minister doing with respect to attending to that -- reducing the amount of crime that's related to drugs? What programs, what policy directions...? What is being done within the ministry to address this subject?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the member has identified an issue that is central to criminal issues. I think I mentioned in the House the other day that two-thirds of the provincial prison population at any one time includes people who have a substance-abuse problem. It's often the substance-abuse problem which either directly or indirectly leads to the criminal activity for which they're sentenced.
[ Page 13700 ]
I don't think, frankly, that any government -- and society as well, collectively -- has taken all the necessary steps to deal with drug addiction, drug problems. The education that should begin early in school -- at home in families and then in the school system -- is obviously not sufficient. One sees that now, with the number of young girls who are starting smoking as teenagers, which is a horrifying development in the last few years. I see that as part of the continuum that the member talks about. That's a drug; and alcohol, similarly, gets abused. We have failed somehow, as a society, to have people understand the consequences of that kind of behaviour.
Once people are in the Attorney General's system, it's usually pretty late in their addiction or their problem. We have programs within the corrections branch dealing with alcohol and drug treatment. We have alcohol education programs for impaired drivers who are sentenced. Within a very limited budget, we try to do as much as we can. But I think it's fair to say that all of us collectively in our society don't do enough, and we could do more. I wish we had a bigger budget for that kind of initiative, but we don't. In respect of the law and the prosecution of direct drug-related issues, of course this is even more federal than most criminal matters, given that federal prosecutors prosecute drug offences, not the provincial Crown.
I would just say that I share the member's concern about the issue. I think the member and I have talked about this before on occasion. We all have to try to do better than we've done in our society to date.
C. Serwa: I have just one or two more questions for the minister. I'm rather pleased that the minister mentioned the increase in those individuals smoking. I had forgotten to mention that when I was talking actually about the gun control type of legislation that the federal Liberals brought in.... I see that probably in 30 or 40 years or something, we'll be losing about 100,000 Canadians a year because of the reduction in the tax on tobacco products by the federal government. If I am ever going to applaud our provincial government, and I will on this one occasion, I have to applaud you for not reducing the provincial taxes on cigarettes. I think that would have increased the access and created the medical heart and cancer problems at a much later date.
A significant concern is violence among young people, and it seems that the violence is spreading. It's not only on the streets, it's now in the school systems, and not even just in the senior school systems -- the senior high schools. It's spreading into lower grades -- the gang violence, the unfairness of a gang singling out one individual. We're finding in the criminal court system that only the actual individual who was finally responsible for taking the life of someone, perhaps, or injuring that person, is actually charged. The other ten or 15 or 20 that were there at the scene -- that are, from my particular concern, just as vital to the end result as the individual that is ultimately charged -- get away scot-free. They're active participants, they actually encourage, and somehow this is propagating to a greater degree, whether it's in Victoria or whether it's in Kelowna or perhaps in Vancouver. It appears to be happening all over the province.
What is the ministry doing with respect to that? Obviously, it's a multifaceted type of a question, because it's not simply the Ministry of Attorney General, although you're foremost in it; but obviously public education is involved and other ministries as well -- perhaps Social Services. I don't understand the phenomena that are creating it, whether there's some sickness in society, some disease in society, or whether it's the incidence of violence on television that normalizes that type of behaviour. I don't know what the answer to that is. But it's an area of significant concern. Again, my question to the minister is: what is the ministry doing with respect to that as far as education, perhaps, in the school system and influencing that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is correct. There are a number of ministries that have some responsibility or some activity in respect of this, including Women's Equality and the Ministry of Education. We have, particularly through the gang and youth crime prevention program, embarked on a number of educational-type programs and resources for young people, including -- I mentioned this the other day as well -- the gang and youth contact line, which is a 1-800 number around the province where young people can phone in to get advice and support, and to talk about concerns that they may have about youth violence. We have a youth police officer network that works in conjunction with the gang and youth crime group. We have an interministry committee on criminal gangs which deals with youth issues.
I'm particularly pleased by the educational initiative which came out of Coquitlam by a group of high school students there, a group called 841-KOZ, who go around doing a bit of play-acting about crime and violence and gangs, and how kids can handle themselves when they get into these peer group pressure situations which may lead them down a course they don't really want to go.
So there's a whole variety of those kinds of initiatives. Again, we fund these things off the corner of our desk, because the criminal justice system still continues to be primarily a reactive system. Most of our money goes to deal with problems that are presented to us, rather than having very much of our resources available for prevention. I would like to be able to divert a greater proportion of our budget to prevention; that's not available, although we're continuing to make progress. Another program that I should mention in conjunction with the Ministry of Education is a Kids At Risk program, which the two ministries are involved in.
There are other initiatives. I think the Minister of Women's Equality has been involved in a program dealing with peer group mediation, teaching -- particularly, I think, around the grade 10 level -- high school kids how to deal with conflict and disputes by way of mediation and resolution, rather than the way.... At least when I went to school, if you didn't like what somebody said, you beat 'em up -- or in my case, I usually got beat up. That kind of old response is one that we have to begin to move away from, obviously. But in moving away from the traditional kind of response, people have to be shown that there are other and better ways of resolving disputes, and there are some good programs going on. The one I was quite impressed by -- and I mentioned this the other day, as well -- was at Princess Margaret School in Surrey. I saw a program in action there that I was quite impressed with.
Having said all of that, there's more we could do there too if we had a bigger budget for prevention. I think in the long term that if we did, we would save money on the parts of the justice system that we now spend money on reacting to a problem after it's occurred. But we're working at it.
[ Page 13701 ]
[3:15]
M. Lord: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Lord: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of 25 grade 5 students from Tsolum Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher Ms. Brydon. The students are particularly delighted to be here today when the Attorney General is discussing his estimates. He is well known in our riding because his riding is adjacent to ours. As well, concerns about crime and safety issues in our riding are shared by these school children. So I bid the House to please make these students welcome.
C. Serwa: The minister has talked about prevention. Obviously, prevention and the cause of what -- in the public's perception -- appears to be exploding with respect to crime, perhaps with respect to drug abuse, are certainly significant concerns. We have a whole industry established to play with the symptoms, but we never seem to be able to find anyone who is willing to look at exploring the root causes and trying to address those in order to prevent dealing with this explosive growth of symptoms, which we're virtually unable to afford. This goes for the Ministry of Health, too; again, we have very little in the way of prevention.
The other day the minister was talking about the amount of space we need in jails within the province of British Columbia. I know that one is going into the central Okanagan. One of the concerns I have is with the capital cost of building a security type of prison. It appears to be about three times the cost of building an acute care bed in a hospital. It is also about three times the cost of building a similar facility in the States, and over and above that, the cost of keeping a prisoner in the function is dramatically higher. But our costs are dramatically higher. In many places in the States they've gone to privatization of the jail system, where they're built and apparently maintained by the private sector. Has the minister explored that to try to be more cost-effective? I don't know that jails are necessarily the cure, but certainly they're required in society.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, I suppose jails will always be with us. I do think, however, that we need to continue to move toward alternatives to incarceration -- effective sanctions, but alternatives to incarceration -- for those people who are not a risk to society and for whom incarceration may not be the most effective way of demonstrating society's displeasure with their actions.
I don't know what the American costs are for building prisons, other than knowing they often build great, big buildings with lots of beds in them, and that there may be some economies of scale in the sheer size of their system. I know, to my horror -- and I suppose the member knows this -- that the state of California will be spending more money building jails by next year than building schools. We really have to start to think about that kind of response to crime.
The member mused about private construction of the facilities. The buildings are obviously tendered out and are built by private contractors to BCBC specifications, but I don't know that there's any evidence whatsoever that turning over the facility to a private organization would produce economies. I haven't seen the evidence of that. My instincts are that it wouldn't, and that it could potentially create other problems. This is not an ideological response. On the community services side of corrections, we do in fact contract out, and some of them are not for profit. The John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, for example, are not for profit groups, but they are certainly not part of the government, either. We have no difficulty with that kind of approach to the issue.
I don't have on ideological blinders around this issue. I want to do what's most effective, what serves the public need in the most effective way, and that includes not only having the right policy applied in the right conditions but also having the most effective cost achieved. If the member is aware of any studies on this subject that would be useful to me, I'd be happy if he would send them along to me in due course.
D. Mitchell: The member for Okanagan West was talking about issues related to youth, and I have a brief question for the Attorney General. I wonder if he could tell us whether a specific brochure, one that will accompany summonses to youth who are appearing in court, has been finalized and completed by the ministry. I understand that an inordinate amount of time is taken up when young people are summonsed for court appearances and arrive unprepared -- without parents, without lawyers and totally unprepared. It apparently takes up quite a bit of time in youth court, in particular, and what I'm referring to is youth court.
My understanding is that the Ministry of Attorney General had under consideration last year a brochure that was being prepared so it could be sent out with a summons to young people appearing in youth court. It would help them be prepared, so that when they arrived in court, they wouldn't waste a lot of valuable time. I know that the district of West Vancouver, for instance, has a Family Court-Youth Justice Committee that has prepared such a brochure for the municipality of West Vancouver. It may well be a model that the Ministry of Attorney General may want to adopt. Has any progress been made on that project?
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that it's a project, because I'm not quite sure what the member's reference is to a discussion last year about a brochure that would be available to young people who are charged. People who are involved under the Young Offenders Act presumably wouldn't be likely to appear in court without lawyers. All young offenders who are charged are automatically provided with legal aid counsel. That's a provision of the Young Offenders Act which requires the legal aid system in the province to provide counsel. I'm not quite sure where we're going with this. I don't remember a discussion about a brochure, and I don't think such a project is currently underway.
D. Mitchell: I am simply referring to a matter on which I know the Attorney General's office has had some correspondence. There is an issue about delays caused in youth court at the stage of first appearance. Young people come to court often completely unprepared; they have no idea what to expect or what they are going to experience in the courtroom. Often they don't have anyone present to help establish their age, whether that be parents, a lawyer or anyone else.
[ Page 13702 ]
The West Vancouver Family Court-Youth Justice Committee has prepared "An Introduction to Youth Court," a brochure which has been sent to the ministry. It suggests that it would be a way of saving time and money if the ministry would automatically send out such a brochure, or similar fact sheet or information, to any young person summonsed to court, so that they will know what to expect and can be better prepared, which would save valuable court time. It was my understanding that the ministry had such a brochure in process or under consideration. I take it from the minister that that is not the case, but it might be a good idea worth following up.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are quite a few brochures, either already printed or contemplated by the ministry. I don't have a list of them in my head, but I would be happy to look at this. If it has been sent to the ministry, no doubt it will be somewhere in the ministry, and they will now be alerted by way of this exchange that they should have a look at what West Vancouver has done. I am certainly open to looking at it.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that commitment. Just to prompt his office's files, I will send him a copy of a letter that was sent to him on July 15, 1994, by Jane Baynham, chair of the West Vancouver Family Court-Youth Justice Committee. I will make a copy and send it over separately; I won't do that today.
I have one brief question on another matter on which I personally corresponded with the Attorney General over the last couple of years. It is the subject of a Law Reform Commission study on recreational injuries, liabilities and waivers in commercial leisure activities. This deals with, for instance, ski injuries. When people buy a ski pass, whether at Whistler or any other ski hill in the province, they are effectively signing a waiver that they will not place the ski hill under any liability for any injuries sustained while skiing. Skiing is a very dangerous sport, of course, and the whole liability issue is serious. I think it is a serious matter. We all want to encourage a healthy and vibrant skiing industry. It is a major part of our tourism attraction in British Columbia. The Law Reform Commission has come up with some specific proposals in this regard. The hon. Attorney General has indicated to me that no legislation will be forthcoming on this matter this year. Is there a reason for the delay? When can we expect to proceed and make some progress on this?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ministry has received the report on this issue from the Law Reform Commission. It is an exhaustive study. It is an issue in which I have a personal interest as a long-time recreational skier, but it is not an issue that made the legislative agenda this year. For every bill that gets introduced here, there are ten more anxiously waiting to be introduced, and that subject is one of those that didn't quite make it.
D. Mitchell: It's a pity. I wish the Attorney General would talk to his colleague the Minister of Tourism about the importance of the skiing industry to our province. It is not only something that he might enjoy, but it is a huge industry with huge economic potential for our province. I hope that he will be able to treat this with more urgency. It is an issue that not only affects all skiers but the liability of those ski hill operators who run their businesses. There is similar legislation already in place in many American states, for instance. There is no reason why we in British Columbia couldn't and shouldn't show some leadership on this issue as well. I wish the hon. Attorney General would treat this with a little more urgency.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To add to what I said by saying that.... The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission were not met with unanimous support. It would be a fair amount of work to sort through from the recommendations what might actually be the appropriate form of legislation. So that work wouldn't have been able to have been completed for this session in any event.
D. Mitchell: Just one final area that I'd like to canvass with the hon. Attorney General. Yesterday I asked the Attorney General some questions about a matter at Alouette River Correctional Centre. I've now had a chance to review the Attorney General's responses to my questions in the Hansard Blues, and I've reviewed them very carefully. I'd like to simply ask for clarification today. Was the hon. Attorney General reluctant to answer in any detail the questions I posed to him yesterday about the investigation ongoing into some very serious matters at Alouette River? Was he reluctant because the matter is currently the subject of a police investigation? Is that the reason that he was not forthcoming yesterday?
[3:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was reluctant to talk about the matter yesterday. It's an internal management issue. Someone from another part of the ministry outside of that centre is doing what is an internal issue. I just didn't think it was appropriate for us to talk about that internal matter in a relatively uninformed way. Neither the member nor I are aware of all of the details of the work that's being done there now.
D. Mitchell: It is true that I was seeking information yesterday. Part of the role of a member of the Legislature is to seek information, especially through the estimates debate in this committee. That's one of our roles; it's one of our obligations. Some allegations have been brought out. I don't want to ask the hon. Attorney General to comment on this if he cannot; I'm simply seeking some clarification on this matter.
My understanding is that a very serious allegation was made at Alouette River, initially dealing with sexual harassment. An employee at Alouette River made a charge of sexual harassment. An investigation led to a much more serious charge, if we can have a more serious charge than sexual harassment: there were drugs potentially being smuggled into this correctional facility. We talked yesterday about the definition of contraband. I imagine that the definition of contraband would include steroids and hashish and drugs such as these. I understand that these are the charges that have been made.
The hon. Attorney General has indicated that this is an internal matter being investigated; yet my understanding, based upon comments he made yesterday.... I was led to believe that this might be not an internal investigation but an RCM Police investigation into this matter. I was led to believe that that might be the reason that the Attorney General was not forthcoming and not wanting to discuss the matter. If that's the case, that's fine.
[ Page 13703 ]
Can the Attorney General confirm in the committee today -- and I won't go into it in any more detail than he can -- that as a result of the investigation, employees have already either been suspended, transferred or fired?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The direct answer to the direct question is no.
Beyond that, the member made references to sexual harassment. In fact, I think the term "personal harassment" would be a more appropriate description of the concerns. The member made reference to other matters, which the RCMP have been informed about.
D. Mitchell: Last year, when the very unfortunate incident occurred in the Danny Perrault case, to which a special inquiry headed by Madam Justice Prowse, who was appointed by the hon. Attorney General.... The issue of whistle-blower protection came up in this House. We had some discussions during estimates last year and in the House during question period as well. The Attorney General and I had some interaction about whistle-blower protection, which was one of the campaign promises of the NDP government when they came to office. They were going to specifically enforce whistle-blower protection for any public servant who had information about a serious nature. They could bring it forward, and they would be guaranteed protection.
In the case at Alouette River, a very serious matter is under investigation, as the Attorney General has now confirmed. My understanding is that there may be one or more employees who are somewhat reluctant to come forward with evidence for fear that it will be damaging to their careers. Can the Attorney General commit today in this committee that any individuals who have any information with respect to the serious allegations that are being made at Alouette River about either harassment or the smuggling of drugs into a correctional facility will get the protection that they require in order to come forward and get to the truth of this matter, so that we can try to restore some confidence in our corrections system, which seems to be eroded time and time again?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I said to the member last year, and I will repeat it this year, that no employee of the ministry will be disciplined for bringing forward information that should be in the hands of that employee's superiors. That commitment to all of the employees of the ministry stands. If there are matters that the employee's superiors should know about, all employees should feel confident in coming forward. If there are no other issues that might get in the way, then there would clearly be no discipline taken for simply honouring their duty to report those matters to their superiors.
D. Mitchell: I have one final question, then, to the Attorney General about this matter at Alouette River. Yesterday he indicated that he didn't feel that it would be appropriate for the independent office of inspection and standards to be involved in this kind of investigation because it might presumably be the subject of a police investigation or other reviews that are ongoing in the ministry. If the matters at Alouette River are not referred to this independent office that's been established -- and he's indicated that there might be an issue here of harassment; I've suggested that there might be other serious matters dealing with drugs and the smuggling of drugs into correctional facilities -- could the minister tell us why these matters are not appropriate to refer to that independent officer? Why would they be out of the ambit of the officer, according to the Attorney General?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this stage it is not appropriate for Mr. Anderson's office to be involved. That does not mean that at some other stage it might not be appropriate.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister some questions relating to the sale from this province to other parts of the world, including the United States, of lottery tickets. Why, as I asked at the last session we had, has the minister failed to enforce the law which was passed in July 1993 that explicitly prevents the sale of any type of lottery tickets from within the province or the indication that there is any sale available? In fact, I would read the announcements of the Minister of Government Services of July 14, 1993, called "Lottery Ticket Resales To Be Regulated":
"'Lottery ticket resale businesses currently sell tickets to customers in the United States and Asia without any regulation. Government intends to develop regulations to ensure that reselling activities are conducted to the same standard that applies to the B.C. Lottery Corporation.
"'Concerns have been expressed around protection of consumers and British Columbia's reputation with the international lottery community, given the current lack of regulations.
"'Government regulations will be developed to address three areas of concern around the resale of lottery tickets: the nature of advertising, the financial solvency of commercial operations and their operating controls, and contravention of codes of conduct of international state lottery associations.' Government will be developing regulations to address these concerns and will consult with the lottery ticket resale businesses this fall on the timing for implementation of regulations."
That came out on July 14, 1993; on July 30, 1993, a further news release from the Minister of Government Services stated:
"Legislative amendments to the Lottery Corporation Act passed earlier this week banning the resale of lottery tickets to persons outside of B.C. will go into effect early next week. An order-in-council approved today will bring the legislation into effect when it is deposited with the registrar of regulations Tuesday, August 3, 1993.
"The legislation is designed to address specific concerns, including: the nature of advertising, the financial solvency of ticket resale commercial operations and their operating controls, and contravention of codes of conduct of international state lottery associations. The lack of regulations governing this industry had given rise to concerns around the protection of consumers and British Columbia's reputation within the international lottery community."
That legislation specifically details the following items. This is taken from the Lottery Corporation Act, section 10.1.
"(1) In this section 'resell' means, in relation to lottery tickets,
"(a) to resell one or more lottery tickets after they have been purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail,
"(b) to sell an interest in one or more lottery tickets that have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail, or
"(c) to sell an interest in any prizes won as a result of participation in a lottery scheme for which one or more lottery tickets have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail.
[ Page 13704 ]
"(2) A person must not, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
"(a) resell or offer to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia;
"(b) advertise to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia or advertise regarding the possibility of such resale;
"(c) distribute lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);
"(d) have in the person's possession lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);
"(e) conspire with another person to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
"(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000."
Could the minister tell us which, if any, sections of this legislation are unenforceable?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure where the member is going, but the law is enforceable. If the courts tell us otherwise at some stage, we'll have to have a look at it, but in the meantime, it's enforceable.
K. Jones: I wasn't quite clear what the answer to the question was. Which part of this, if any, is unenforceable?
An Hon. Member: It's all enforceable.
K. Jones: Has the minister indicated that it's all enforceable? I wasn't quite sure; I was interrupted by your House Leader.
Interjections.
K. Jones: Okay. It's all enforceable.
Could the Attorney General tell us under what basis...? What type of enforcement has been done under any of these clauses?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated to the member yesterday that.... I'll just read what I said: "...the matter is under investigation by the police." There is an ongoing investigation, and if we're advised of any allegations, we refer those to the police, as the member should do.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what portion of this legislation is under investigation by the police? Is every phase of this under investigation by the police? Surely he cannot hide behind an investigation as the reason for not answering which section of this he has done any enforcement under.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I never comment, nor should any Attorney General ever comment, on the nature or extent of a police investigation. The member should know that.
K. Jones: The minister is fully aware that there were persons identified as having, in this past year, lost money as a result of operations occurring here in British Columbia. I'm sure that the information has been brought to his attention; it was well publicized. Could the minister tell us if this is the investigation he is referring to? Or is he referring to some other investigation? This current investigation of some Americans who have bought lottery tickets from operations here in British Columbia.... Is this the one that he's referring to?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to comment on that, but simply repeat that all matters that suggest criminality are referred to the police.
K. Jones: The Better Business Bureau of the mainland of British Columbia has had a lot of complaints with regard to offshore lottery operations and has identified -- and it's public information -- the outfits that have been doing business here in British Columbia. It should not require a great deal of investigative difficulty, or be any problem for the minister to take action with regard to even one aspect of this legislation, and there are many different aspects that the minister could probably look into. But these operations still continue to operate today, because the minister or his staff has failed to take any action against these people.
[3:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to interrupt the member. I don't know whether he needs a civics lesson or whether he needs a basic political science lesson about the nature of how our society works. The Attorney General does not investigate alleged criminal activities, nor does the Attorney General's staff investigate alleged criminal activities. That's the job of the police. Through -- what? -- four sets of estimates I've had similar questions from this member. I don't know what it takes -- or how long it's going to take me -- to try to explain to the member what the role of the police is in our society. Any matters that people feel are of a criminal nature are referred to the police. They are not referred to the Attorney General; or if they are referred to the Attorney General, they are immediately re-referred to the police. They are the investigative agency for criminal wrongdoing in this country. I've said this to the member for four years; how long is it going to take?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
K. Jones: It'll probably take as long as it takes to get a straight, honest answer out of the minister. The minister has been failing to proceed in taking action, although he insisted that this legislation was absolutely required on a very short-notice basis and was going to be implemented within six weeks of the legislation being brought forward, and has failed to bring forward anything on that charge that he was supposedly investigating. I have my doubts about whether there was any investigation being done at that time. I think that the minister possibly misled this House in bringing forward that information.
Interjections.
K. Jones: The Attorney General brought this legislation before this House and indicated that it was essential to have it passed and that it was important to have it passed very quickly at that time, in order to take some action. That action was never proceeded with.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to take a relaxed attitude toward the allegation, rather than get into a brouhaha with the member. Simply to say that the initiative last year was urgent.... Let me simply say that the member doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It would be appropriate for him to move on to a new topic.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member, can I just suggest that we are, I think, very close to the end of these
[ Page 13705 ]
estimates? I suggest that a little greater degree of civility on both sides would probably be helpful. I just offer that caution, members.
K. Jones: I'd like to read an item from one of these reports. The report indicates that this company contacts U.S. consumers by telephone, offering B.C. lottery tickets at inflated prices. Is that an illegal offence?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not for me to say whether an offence is illegal or not. That's a job the courts do in this society.
K. Jones: Is the Attorney General responsible for the law in British Columbia?
The Chair: Shall the vote pass?
Interjections.
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues.
K. Jones: The Attorney General doesn't know whether he's responsible for the enforcement of law in British Columbia. He's indicated that by his response.
Interjections.
K. Jones: The Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, has full responsibilities through his prosecution arm for the enforcement of the laws. I certainly hope that he would feel that responsibility, since if he is not, we are wasting our time bringing legislation before this House.
Interjection.
K. Jones: It's really unfortunate that the backbenchers of your party, hon. minister, feel this to be rather sensitive. They're having some difficulty realizing that this a very serious charge that is being brought here, and one that is meant in all conscience when I make it.
These operations are continuing to operate in British Columbia. There are a very large number of them. They are operating under various names, which I have documented right here in front of me. I'm sure the Attorney General has these names. If the Attorney General does not have these names, I would like to know why. If he doesn't, I will be happy to show them to him.
If the minister has these names -- and they're indicated by a series of letters that complain to the people who say such things as, "I never purchased this said lottery, nor did I ever receive any such lottery" -- I ask the minister: is this an offence under this legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All information that has come into the possession of the ministry has been forwarded to the police. Since the member seems unable to do the same, I would be happy to take the material from the member so that I can deliver it to the police, where it belongs.
K. Jones: The reason this information has come to me is that there has been no action, and the people in the Better Business Bureau have concerns that the people who have brought these complaints are not being properly protected from what would appear to be illegal operations here in British Columbia. They would appear to be in total violation of the amendments to the Lottery Act of July 1993, and the minister appears not to want to take any action in directing his staff to protect the interests of these people or of British Columbians who are also possibly affected by this same type of operation.
Could the minister try to give us a straight answer about what is going on in any of this, or even answer whether any of the complaints described fall into the category of this legislation? It's a very simple question. Would that type of complaint be in violation of this legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know how many times I have to say it. First, any information alleging criminal wrongdoing should be in the hands of the police; and second, I make no comment at any time about police investigations.
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a different matter.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether it is his responsibility to be able to identify what is or is not an infraction of a bill that regulates activities in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll try this from the beginning. Parliament passes laws. If someone feels that there is a criminal breach of one of those laws, they report that to the police. The police investigate. The police then determine the facts. They refer those facts to the Crown. The Crown makes a decision whether charges should be laid, and if so, which ones. Following that, the courts makes a decision about the facts, and that's the end of it. I don't know whether the member has understood how the criminal justice system works, but in short form, that's how it works.
That should put an end to the questions. If it doesn't, I'll repeat the answer again and again until the member shows some level of comprehension.
K. Jones: Is the minister's ministry responsible for the police in the province of British Columbia?
The Chair: Member, I'm placed in an awkward position, because it seems to me almost a rhetorical question, and we are on the fourth day of estimates now, I think. Certainly the minister has an obligation to answer questions of substance, but.... Anyway, Mr. Attorney.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Police in British Columbia can be divided into three categories: the federal government has responsibility, the provincial Attorney General has responsibility and the municipalities have responsibility.
K. Jones: Could the Attorney General tell us if there are certain police responsibilities that come under the Attorney General's jurisdiction that relate to the enforcement of provincial legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I am going to answer that question by saying that the Attorney General does not direct
[ Page 13706 ]
the police in respect of individual investigations, as to what they should or shouldn't do. The police are independent from the political process, and so they should be.
K. Jones: I will ask the same question with regard to whether the minister has any portion of his ministry that is responsible for the prosecution of provincial legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am sure the member knows the answer to that. Yes.
[4:00]
K. Jones: We are making tremendous progress. We have finally got an admission, after all of this effort, that the Attorney General does have some responsibility to look after provincial legislation, including -- and I believe he has to admit -- both the policing responsibility and the prosecution responsibility of violations of provincial legislation.
Now, that concluded, I hope the minister isn't going to backtrack on the fact that he does have responsibility in those two areas. Surely the minister cannot now say that he does not know what is going on in his ministry with regard to prosecution or policing. Could the minister answer whether he is knowledgable of what is going on in his ministry in the prosecution and policing areas with regard to the Lottery Corporation Act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, but I am not going to share it with the member.
K. Jones: Now we are making great progress. We have now, after all that playing of games, come to the conclusion that the minister does have knowledge which he is not willing to divulge. He is not, therefore, prepared to tell the public why they have to continue to have injurious activities -- injurious to their financial means or other means -- carrying on when the minister has the ability to put a stop to them under the legislation. The question is: why has the minister failed to enforce the legislation over the last two, going on three, years?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I do feel like I need to take a shower. On a serious note, hon. Chair, in case there is a misapprehension anywhere that we don't treat seriously these issues, I want to set the member straight. Matters of this kind are taken seriously; and I simply want to say to the member again that there is a police investigation and that is all I can say about it. I don't know why the member can't understand that it is inappropriate for any further comment to be made. In refusing to comment, or in refusing to answer the kinds of questions and suggestions that the member is making, he should not draw an inference that criminal wrongdoing is treated lightly by the justice system, by this ministry or by this minister. It certainly is not.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister or this ministry doesn't take it lightly, but the people in the business of selling lottery tickets, which is illegal under this legislation, are taking it very lightly, because they're continuing to operate. Surely the minister has to do something to put a stop to this. Is the minister doing anything to put a stop to this? Secondly, is the minister referring to the investigation of the allegations of wrongdoing that had been brought forward through requests to the Better Business Bureau this last year, or is he referring to the investigation that was started prior to July 1993?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not making any specific references whatsoever.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I would ask him to just take his seat for a moment. I certainly have no wish, as the servant of this chamber, to impede the debate. However, I must point out that I'm honour-bound by the rules of this assembly to remind you of standing order 43. This is simply my first notice that standing order 43 -- persistence in tediousness and repetitiousness -- is in fact being manifested before my eyes. I caution the member on that, and I hope I won't have to remind him of that again.
K. Jones: I have certainly been aware of that from the time I started. I was hoping that we would have a straightforward set of answers on this subject and that we wouldn't be belabouring the issue, but it seems to be very hard to get an answer from the Attorney General on what is a very, very serious concern to a lot of people in British Columbia. It's a concern as to the credibility of law enforcement and prosecution forces within this province, and it is certainly a question of the credibility of the Attorney General's office itself.
I have followed this issue from the time we were told that this had to come through as a quick piece of legislation, in July of '93, and that prosecution was going to be within six or seven weeks. Having had conversations with the Attorney General himself about the status of it when that time had expired, and having written letters to his deputies and assistant deputies, and having had to go all the way to the freedom-of-information commissioner in order to try and get a response from them, I then got a response stating that there was no investigation going on. The Attorney General seems to have given us a different statement today than his staff indicated in the letter -- which is under his signature, I believe -- that was sent out to us.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would just share the letter with me. I want to confirm again that there is an ongoing investigation.
K. Jones: I think the minister should be aware of this issue. It should be -- to me, at least, and I think to a lot of people in British Columbia -- a very major part in his memory files or in his attention area. He surely hasn't just cast this off to some minor person to look after and is just letting it float along. It certainly would be the desire of those people who are in the business to have that happen, and perhaps that's very beneficial to them. I don't know on what basis that decision is being made. The minister is going to have to be answerable as to why this is occurring, and I think that there is a real need for something to be done right up front.
Since the minister does not wish to provide anything further in this area, I will not belabour the issue any longer in this question period, but the minister can be assured that this issue is not dead. The issue will be continually brought to his attention until there is prosecution of these processes. With that, I will stand down from this item, and we can talk about the other items. I have a couple of other items I would also like to ask the minister about.
I'd like to go into the area of aboriginal or Indian gaming, as it's referred to in the United States, and the enforcement of promotions of that in British Columbia. There have been cases
[ Page 13707 ]
of faxes being sent to people in British Columbia inviting them to participate in a series of phone calls to 900 numbers, which costs money for the 900 number and also involves people in putting out money to participate in it. Is this an illegal activity in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't hear precisely what the word "this" referred to.
K. Jones: The activity of promoting lotteries run by American Indians in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Based on that kind of information, I can't draw any conclusions. If there is any doubt in the member's mind about whether that's an illegal activity, and if he has any information that would be useful, he should report it to the police.
K. Jones: From the RCMP, I have a letter to me dated March 14, 1995. It is from the staff sergeant of the White Rock RCMP, indicating that they had investigated this.
"We subsequently sought further analysis of the documents...by our E Division commercial crime section as well as the Vancouver RCMP criminal investigation unit. Both departments advised that they have been unsuccessful in acquiring convictions in court in the recent past concerning similar schemes. As a result, they have been referring the information directly to United States authorities, who have been successful in their prosecutions."
Could the Attorney General tell us why it is possible to prosecute in the United States, while this cannot be prosecuted here in Canada where the people are being victimized?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would be kind enough to pass a copy of the details of his file to us, we would be very happy to review the matter, make a determination and get back to the member with an appropriate response.
K. Jones: I would like to read the following sentence after that last one I gave you: "After receiving this assessment, we referred this matter to Surrey provincial Crown counsel for their opinion as well. Crown counsel has subsequently informed us that the chance of a successful prosecution would be remote."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decision about whether or not prosecution proceeds depends on the facts of the case. If the member wants that particular case reviewed by senior Crown counsel in Victoria, I would be happy to accommodate him.
K. Jones: I am surprised that the minister isn't informed when references like this -- which are not just single incidents but a canvass of fax machines throughout British Columbia, where people who participated in it are open for victimization.... From my understanding of our lotteries legislation, this would be part of an illegal operation in British Columbia. Why the Attorney General wasn't aware of this information -- and I gave a complete package of this to the RCMP and they passed it on to Crown counsel... Why hasn't further inquiry been done by the Attorney General's office?
[4:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I try to do a good job, but I have trouble remembering the details of 100,000 cases a year that go through the criminal justice branch. Obviously, I am not informed of or advised about very many of that large number, nor would anybody expect that I should be. But my offer stands. If the member wants further consideration of this issue by senior Crown counsel at headquarters here in Victoria, that offer is open to him.
K. Jones: I will make sure that the minister's staff has the information he desires.
I would like to ask the minister what his view is on mandatory mediation screening and orientation prior to family and civil cases.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mandatory mediation is not something we think is appropriate.
K. Jones: Why doesn't the minister feel that mandatory mediation screening in family and civil cases is a good idea?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mediation only works when the parties involved want to resolve their dispute. If one party or the other -- or both, for that matter -- aren't interested in mediated settlement, it is pretty tough to get a mediated settlement.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister would be interested in knowing that the province of Saskatchewan already practises this. Perhaps he may want to look into the Saskatchewan process.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will double-check, but my memory of the Saskatchewan policy is that it flows from legislation, as opposed to ours, which flows from a policy determination. Unless the member can send me a copy of the statute, which I don't have here, that demonstrates I'm wrong, I don't believe they practise mandatory mediation.
K. Jones:
"In the last session of the Saskatchewan Legislature, two new sections were added to the Queen's Bench Act. The full text of the new sections is attached as appendix A. Essentially the new provisions require that parties to all proceedings in the court must attend a mediation session, or in the case of a family law proceeding, a screening and orientation session. Attendance at such a session is mandatory unless the mediator excuses the parties because of concerns of power imbalance or safety of the parties, or because the mediator is satisfied that the parties have already engaged in a bona fide mediation session."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd want to look at that and read it again. On first hearing, it says something different from what the member said it said -- but I don't want to quibble on that.
One of my major concerns about mediation.... Let me go back a step further. I'm a great supporter of mediated resolution to family dispute matters, and I've said that in the House many times, including during these estimates. One of the things I'm most concerned about with respect to mediated solutions is the potential of the power imbalance which can exist between men and women in particular. All too often that power imbalance is an impediment to the use of mediation. So I am not prepared to encourage its use where that kind of power imbalance occurs. The member may want to adopt that policy; I haven't. So if he does, he and I have a difference of opinion.
[ Page 13708 ]
K. Jones: Just to further enlighten the minister: "The section of the legislation in relation to family screening and orientation sessions, section 54(1), was proclaimed into force effective February 1, 1995. The section in relation to civil mediation came into force effective December 1, 1994." I think that if the minister had been listening he would have noted the provisions for the mediator to excuse parties because of concerns of power imbalance, which is what he is concerned about.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I'm not an expert on the Saskatchewan legislation, nor have I read it directly. But listening to what the member says, it sounds to me like they do require mandatory screening, and they have a mandatory obligation to consider mediation. But if the parties are not going to benefit from mediation, they can't be forced into a room with a mediator to try and resolve their issue. The member read nothing that indicated that the law in Saskatchewan requires the parties to sit down with a mediator and mediate a resolution. It might require that they consider that option, and it might require that there be screening. From what I've heard the member read, it certainly doesn't require that they participate in a process which wouldn't work -- because all someone who didn't want to be involved in a mediated settlement would do would be to sit in a room with their arms across their chest saying and doing nothing.
K. Jones: I fully agree with the minister being concerned about that, but it seems that the people on the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench feel that it is mandatory. It states that it is mandatory. It says that the parties shall attend mediation screening and orientation sessions, with the exception of where the mediator finds that there is a safety question or a power question. I understand the Attorney General's concern about that area, but I really think the Attorney General needs to look seriously at some methods like this to start alleviating the large backup that's occurring in our courts. That is not being dealt with properly. People are not getting justice because it's taking over a year to get to their case. Is the Attorney General doing anything to try to resolve this by a mediation method?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know where the member has been for the last number of years, but I'm sure he is aware of the family court counselling program offered by probation officers in British Columbia. I had hoped that the member would have been aware of the family justice pilot projects which are underway in four communities around the province -- one just across the Fraser River from the member, in Burnaby-New Westminster, where we are piloting an approach to family justice issues which relies on mediation, conciliation, counselling and assistance rather than on the arbitrariness of an adversarial court system. I have obviously failed in my responsibility to convey to all British Columbians that these initiatives are underway, because clearly here's one British Columbian who doesn't know about it.
K. Jones: I'll accept that personal comment, but it doesn't change the concern and the need and doesn't.... A few pilot projects aren't going to resolve the court backlog you've got seriously affecting justice for people in our province. Has the minister also looked at alternatives, although we haven't seen any indication of them? I don't see anything in this budget that indicates that we might have evening sittings of our courts so that our court buildings might get better utilization. Has the Attorney General looked at that aspect?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Ministry of Attorney General has looked at that idea over the years, including before I assumed this responsibility.
K. Jones: What conclusion has the Attorney General made with regard to that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not a simple issue, first of all. There are issues involving the judiciary, who are independent from government, requiring setting up a situation where I can't simply do something that they may not want to do, and for very good reason. Budgetary questions that don't present themselves at first blush come from extended sittings. Notionally it makes sense to use buildings that are expensive to their fullest possible extent. That notion exists around schools, where people are now contemplating year-round schooling. That kind of idea has a superficial appeal to it. Often, however, when you start to look at the other costs that come from those ideas, you learn that the savings aren't there in quite the way you thought they might be when you took a simple-minded look at it.
K. Jones: I don't think any persons would take any simple-minded looks at anything like this. I think it's a very serious desire to try and rectify a serious court problem, and it certainly looks like it would provide some efficiency in the use of very expensive court buildings. Has the Attorney General got a study underway that's evaluating this factor? Could I have a copy of that study?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're continuing to look at how we might, if we can, move in those directions. There have been initiatives in the past that haven't worked; it may be because those initiatives weren't designed as well as they might have been. We're continuing to look at the issue. The member refers to a study or a report. I think it's just a question of work being done internally in the ministry at the present time.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what dollars and what FTEs have been assigned to that purpose?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It doesn't work that way, hon. Chair. The court services branch of the ministry, as part of its regular work, is constantly reviewing how they can make more efficient use of the courts and of the space. That's work they do as a matter of course. You don't set up a special branch or special unit to do that; that's the obligation of the people who manage the court services branch.
K. Jones: Could the minister inquire about the status of the work being done by the court services branch and inform us within the week as to what is transpiring?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The status is that it is ongoing, and when conclusions are reached that the ministry executive wishes to implement, that will be made known at that time.
[4:30]
J. Dalton: I have two or three issues I wish to raise with regard to the city of Vancouver and local policing issues. The
[ Page 13709 ]
reason why I'm using the city of Vancouver is, obviously, that the city, being the largest in the province, is somewhat unique in its policing costs. I'm sure the Attorney General would agree with me that obviously many legal -- and criminal, particularly -- matters get dumped into the city of Vancouver because of its location, its size and its attraction. We know that people from many parts of the rest of the country -- and elsewhere in the world, of course -- end up in Vancouver, either temporarily or otherwise. Without question it has a very significant impact on policing costs in particular.
There are several things that I will get to in a moment, hon. Chair, but the issue deals with the financing of local policing services in Vancouver itself. I recall the Attorney General made a reference -- yesterday, if I'm correct; or maybe it was the day before -- to policing in some of the small locations in his own riding, and said that he would like to have more money in order to provide police officers for Port McNeill, perhaps, or Holberg, or Cape Scott or wherever it may be -- or however far north you can go on Vancouver Island. We all appreciate that funding is a delicate matter at the best of times, and that we are not in the best of times now.
The city of Vancouver has addressed several issues, which I'll get to in a moment; but let me just cite from a document they have produced as a result of a meeting last month when the policing issues matter was before city council and their committees. They're dealing with the current independent policing equalization grant allocation. Of course, as the committee will obviously suspect, the city of Vancouver has raised some major concerns about policing costs within their jurisdiction, which costs they consider to be unfair and should either be shared or taken over by the province. For example, this reports says that the city is either inadequately or not reimbursed for a number of functions it undertakes on behalf of the provincial government. They deal within the document with several of those, which I will ask the Attorney General about -- dealing with the city jail, for example. Of course, I suppose we might think at first blush that it's the city's responsibility, because, after all, every courthouse in every jurisdiction whereby people are going to be processed through the criminal courts will have to have a jail facility of some type. I come back to my opening comments. The city of Vancouver is in a unique position, because of both population and other circumstances, whereby many people end up in their jail and court system who would not be a factor in any other municipality in this province.
Under the discussion in this report of the city jail, the report points out that the Vancouver police department has consistently maintained that the province is responsible for the custody of prisoners, and they go over some of the history as to why they feel that, including a legal opinion from the then corporate counsel for the city of Vancouver in 1986. He stated an opinion on that topic of the responsibility of the province for the city jail that the Vancouver police department spends approximately $2.5 million annually to incarcerate provincial prisoners, and none of that is reimbursed."
Can the Attorney General advise us as to whether that figure of $2.5 million is accurate? Has the Attorney General considered reimbursement in the past, or will he be considering that in the future?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment -- because I don't know -- on the accuracy of the costs to the city of Vancouver, but I do know that we provide $800,000 to the city of Vancouver, contrary to what information the member may have been given, for what we call the keep-of-prisoners program.
J. Dalton: I appreciate that aspect. But I think this report.... I don't know whether the Attorney General's had an opportunity...or whether it's even been sent to his ministry. But I'd be more than happy to provide a copy once we're finished. It's a report of fairly recent date. There are no deep dark secrets in it, but I think the issues are important.
Coming out of that particular issue, hon. Chair, dealing with the city jail, there are two recommendations: first, that the provincial government accept responsibility for the funding and operation of the city jail; and second, that until such time as the provincial government is prepared to undertake that operation, it provide full funding to the city of Vancouver for the operation of the jail.
I suppose that some will say: "Well, that's fine. Everyone wants money, and everyone will have their requests." I think that request is certainly one that has some merit and should be considered. I'm not an MLA from the city of Vancouver, so I'm not specifically speaking on behalf of the city as such, other than I think it's an important issue to raise and draw to the attention of the ministry.
The other issue that I will comment on from the same report -- and there are actually five or six in total, but I think this other one is illustrative of the difficulties and the issues that the city of Vancouver is facing which are somewhat unique, as opposed to other municipalities -- and that's dealing with document delivery services. We have some interesting history -- I'll just allude to this very quickly, hon. Chair -- about the costing and the sharing of costs of document delivery services by municipalities in this province. Prior to April 1, 1984, all documents relating to criminal cases were served by the sheriff services division of the Ministry of Attorney General. Then in that year, 1984, a decision was made to transfer this responsibility to the individual municipalities. Then they go on to discuss some of the transfer aspects.
Funding was not provided by the provincial government until September 1985, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs agreed to reimburse the municipalities at a rate of $10 per document served. Then we're told, as well, in the same document, that there have been further reviews of the funding, and of whether the $10 fee was adequate or not. In 1989, a report was produced from the then Solicitor General -- and, of course, we no longer have a Solicitor General; but the Solicitor General of the time conducted a review. In 1990, the new Solicitor General -- there had been a change in that ministry in the meantime -- again advised the city of Vancouver that a review was underway and was expected to be completed in the 1990 fiscal year.
A recommendation had been made to the Treasury Board to increase the document service fee to $25. That has never happened. The recommendations coming out of that aspect are that the provincial government resume responsibility for the service of documents -- in other words, the city of Vancouver is inviting the Attorney General's ministry to take back what it used to have, which would take care of their funding deficiencies -- or that the provincial government establish a fee payment schedule for adequate reimbursement on all documents. Can the Attorney General advise us as to whether
[ Page 13710 ]
either of those options is feasible -- either the provincial government taking back the responsibility that it used to have or...? Are there any serious considerations for an increase in the fee from the current $10 to whatever it might be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a whole range of issues between us and the municipalities in respect of direct or indirect policing costs. We are working with the UBCM to deal with some of these issues. We are looking at the issues that the member raised and at other issues as well.
J. Dalton: I just have two other fairly brief items that I would like to ask about, and then maybe we'll be in the happy position to say, "Adieu," and "Until we meet again."
I have in my hand a copy of a letter -- it's dated December of this year -- from the representative of the West Coast Transition House. Perhaps the authorship or the identity of this association isn't as important as the issue that was raised. This woman, who has been in contact with criminal justice headquarters on Hornby Street, raised the question as to whether children who witness violence are indeed themselves abused. I don't have the actual originating letter that raised this concern, but a copy did go to the Attorney General, among other people. And I think it's an interesting point.
We in this committee talk about victims of crime. Obviously, the abuse of children has to be of paramount concern to all of us and not just to the ministry whose estimates we're now dealing with. Is the Attorney General aware of this particular issue that's been raised? If so, can he comment as to the point that the letter writer is making, which is that we should consider that children who have that very unfortunate experience of witnessing abuse...? I guess we would say that they're not being directly abused -- they're not being physically assaulted -- but I think it's important to consider that these people have suffered harm just as much as anyone, in a real sense.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure where the member is going with this. If he's asking me to agree that children who witness violence are not themselves impacted by that violence, of course.... If he's asking for a programmatic response, then I am not able to respond at this point.
J. Dalton: Perhaps one direction that we might go in -- and this may be more speculative than real.... Earlier we discussed amendments or possible changes to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I don't know how far the government might be prepared to cast the net in dealing with victims within the purview of that statute, but this might be one area. Again, we have to consider the financial and legal implications, but that might be a direction to go in. I just wanted to flag that concern. I think it identifies another area where perhaps in the past the court system and the compensation system haven't really taken these things adequately into account. Maybe it is time to move one step further into that area.
The last thing I wish to ask the Attorney General -- and perhaps it is not directly a question I should put to him, but he deals with the legal services tax.... The Attorney General will recall that controversial tax we brought in 1992, and it was shot down by the courts. Then they brought it back, and I have certainly heard a lot of complaints from lawyers about the tax -- which, by the way, I would remind everyone is a tax on clients. It is not a tax on the lawyer; it is not a tax on the law firm. It is passed on to clients like any other tax. My question: can the Attorney General advise us as to the annual revenue that is produced by the legal services tax?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That is a question that should really go to the Minister of Finance. None of that actually has anything to do with the AG ministry.
J. Dalton: That covers the things I wish to canvass, and I don't see anyone else around me who is ready, unless there is anyone over there who wants to raise a question.
I would like to conclude by saying a particular thank-you to your very patient officials. I know these estimates can sometimes be a little strenuous. When I haven't been asking questions, I have certainly been looking across the room to see reactions and the attentiveness of all of your people -- including, of course, the Attorney General himself. It has been helpful; I know that we have learned a lot. There are probably many, many other issues that we will have to canvass, but we don't need to do that here. We can do that through correspondence, meetings and things of that nature. Again, my thanks, and that's all I have for this committee.
[4:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I just want to thank the member, the critic for the official opposition for the Attorney General ministry, for his courtesy in the five days we have been at this now. I say thank you to him for the way he has handled himself in these estimate debates. I want to indicate to him that if there are any other issues that are unfinished as a result of our discussions, he should feel free to contact the appropriate ministry officials.
With that, I also want to say thank you to all the people from our ministry who have assisted in these estimate debates -- some of whom members see around me; many others are elsewhere, paying close attention to the discussions and making sure that I get the information I need. Any errors or omissions that have occurred are my responsibility. My staff have done excellent work for us all, and I thank them.
Vote 17 approved.
Vote 18: ministry operations, $781,489,552 -- approved.
Vote 19: statutory services, $15,000,000 -- approved.
Vote 20: judiciary, $34,799,720 -- approved.
Vote 21: emergency assistance, $993,076 -- approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 2.
[ Page 13711 ]
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995
Hon. E. Cull: During the prebudget consultation I did this year, I talked to a wide cross-section of British Columbians. It became apparent that there was an honest difference of opinion as to what the government should do once it had achieved a balanced budget. There were some who argued that the government should go beyond the three-year tax freeze, which is currently in its second year, and make further significant reductions in taxes. However, during my consultations with labour and business, community leaders, community organizations and just regular folks around the province, a majority of people made the point that -- given the circumstances facing our province right now -- it is important that we maintain a balanced budget, that we reduce the size of our tax-supported debt in relation to the size of our economy, and that we preserve vital public services such as medicare and education.
Essentially, what they were telling me is that given the small surplus, the need to focus on debt and the significant federal off-loading that will affect medicare, higher education and social services over the next two years, this was not the year to make large tax cuts. So Bill 2 reflects the government's decision to follow the approach that was recommended to me by the majority of the citizens of this province whom I consulted.
In keeping with the approach, Bill 2 makes a number of minor amendments to improve the fairness of six provincial taxation statutes, to provide support to the agricultural and mining sectors, and to amend the Ferry Corporation Act to allow it to proceed with investments required to ensure that ferry service keeps pace with increasing demand.
The specific taxation changes are as follows. As announced in a news release last August, provincial income tax amendments are required to harmonize our provincial Income Tax Act with the federal treatment of mine reclamation trusts. The federal legislation now permits contributions to mine reclamation trusts to be deducted for income tax purposes. Income earned in the trust is taxed on an annual basis, and a special refundable tax credit is provided to beneficiaries of the trust to avoid double taxation. The consequential amendments in this bill harmonize provincial legislation with federal legislation by imposing provincial income tax on the trust and providing a refundable tax credit to the beneficiaries of the trust. The income tax treatment of mine reclamation trusts is consistent among all provinces.
In combination with the federal changes, this legislation will help protect the environment by ensuring that funds are available for future reclamation; improve cash flow, making the trust contributions deductible for tax purposes; and improve tax equity for single-mine companies by matching the tax deduction with income earned from the mine on a current basis.
The corporation capital tax is amended to allow an interest in mining reclamation trusts to be eligible for the investment allowance deduction. This will reduce the impact of the capital tax on mining companies which choose to use reclamation trusts to fund reclamation activities.
The Home Owner Grant Act is also amended to increase the threshold at which the grant is phased out, from $450,000 to $475,000. The increased threshold will ensure that 95 percent of homeowners in British Columbia continue to be unaffected by the phase-out of the grant.
Bill 2 also makes several changes to the Social Service Tax Act to improve fairness, and two amendments to support the agricultural and mining sectors. The measures to improve fairness include clarifying the application of tax to software and extending the proportional refund period from 90 days to one year for motor vehicles returned to dealers. This will allow the purchasers of lemons to obtain a tax refund.
The support for the agricultural and mining sector is provided by providing tax refunds to farmers who purchase prescribed farm equipment in the two-year period immediately prior to obtaining farmland classification, and by transferring the existing 50 percent refund for purchases of certain exploratory mining equipment from the Financial Administration Act to the Social Service Tax Act, increasing the refund to 100 percent and expanding the list of equipment eligible for the refund.
The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to address issues of fairness which have come to light in the last year. The changes prevent the loss of the first-time homebuyers' exemption where death or divorce occurs in the first year after purchasing a home. It exempts the Provincial Capital Commission on purchases of land for park purposes and expands the exemption for transfers of land related to bankruptcies. The latter amendment expands the current exemption for transfers of property from trustees in bankruptcy to bankrupts, to include transfers of principal residences from trustees to spouses or former spouses of bankrupt persons.
The School Act is amended to clarify that grants in lieu of provincial school taxes paid to municipalities must be transferred to the provincial government. This amendment is required to protect provincial revenue.
Finally, the Ferry Corporation Act is amended to increase the level of outstanding debt the corporation may incur from $460 million to $730 million. This increase is a necessary part of the corporation's plan to upgrade the aging ferry fleet.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the budget measures contained in Bill 2. I now move second reading.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Bill 2, which is the means by which the government will implement the budget measures that were outlined in the House some three weeks ago. It seems incumbent upon the opposition to continually point out, with respect to the budget, that there continues to be in the minds of the public a great deal of confusion about the extent of the debt and the deficit in British Columbia.
We know that in the budget tabled by the government there were several one-time charges, including a downstream benefit to the province which was used on an operational side to reduce the size of the deficit for one year only. The official opposition critic has pointed out often and frequently in this House that the real deficit in British Columbia is some $400 million when the one-time benefits realized in this fiscal year are taken out of the equation, as they will surely have to be in the next fiscal year.
With respect to the other implementation measures in Bill 2, the minister has talked about the measures designed to enhance and promote the mining industry. But when we
[ Page 13712 ]
reflect on the mining sector in British Columbia over the past three and a half years, we see a pattern of reduced investment. We see mine closures that have not been replaced with new exploration. It seems unfortunate, as we get into the last fiscal year or the last budget this government may bring down before the next election, that finally we see some recognition by the government of the state of the mining sector in this province, which continues to produce some $4 billion in total economic activity for British Columbia.
It has taken the government this long to recognize the effects of the corporation capital tax, which continues to apply to the purchases of new machinery equipment -- the kind of purchases that companies make in the province to expand production and hire additional people. It has always baffled the opposition as to why the government should be intent, as it has been for four fiscal years now, to punish those companies and individuals with a net asset value of more than a million dollars -- to penalize them for going out and borrowing additional money to provide that kind of capital investment.
We have argued during the budget debate that the corporation capital tax needs to be rescinded altogether. I know the minister will have heard that comment during the prebudget tour to which she alluded in her opening remarks. I'm sure it was mentioned time and again as being a regressive tax that has impacted investment in British Columbia and will continue to do so, when companies like the mining sector's are forced to incur dramatic upfront costs for exploration and development. Clearly the idea that they will have to pay a tax on that risk capital, that risk investment, has been one of the contributing factors to the reduction in confidence in the mining sector in the province over the past three and a half years.
One of the things the opposition has talked about frequently is the need for some sort of truth-in-budgeting legislation or statement of purpose from the government that allows the people of British Columbia to know exactly what the debt position is. As we talked at length during the debate on the actual budget, we know that over the past three and a half years, a considerable amount of the province's debt has been shifted to the books of Crown corporations, that debt is not accounted for in the same way that it is in the sets of estimates we deal with in this chamber.
[5:00]
We've embarked upon a debate in this province, I think to a greater extent than we have in the past, about the extent of the province's debt and deficit. Perhaps it started during the last administration when we had the budget stabilization fund. It was designed as a rainy-day fund. It actually had no money in it but continued to be dealt with by the government in accounting terms as if there was money there with which to reduce the deficit. We've seen that trend continue in the current government, where instead of seeing the debt dealt with under the normal fiscal year, we see it amortized, so to speak, on the books of Crown corporations, with a revenue source attached to those amortization schedules -- with the result, I think, that the water has been considerably muddied with respect to exactly how much debt the province has incurred.
I know that a number of these issues would have been raised on the minister's prebudget tour. The need to have an honest set of books in the province, a direct set of books which the people in this province can deal with, can look at and really assess where we are.... I almost hope that in the years ahead we'll be able to try and depoliticize the debt-and-deficit issues, and to produce a set of books with which governments and opposition will be able to deduce exactly where we are. We're sitting here debating a so-called balanced budget. That's what we're supposedly debating, and yet almost any financial analyst you talk to, based on standard accounting practice, will tell you that the budget in this province isn't balanced -- that we've added $1 billion in new debt during the current fiscal year which is not adequately accounted for.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to go through Bill 2 in committee stage to really have the minister explain adequately what exactly is intended by a number of these changes to the various statutes that come under her ministry. I know that the official opposition critic for Finance, who could not be here today during the debate, will certainly welcome the opportunity to expand on the issues during committee stage of the bill.
With that, I'll take my seat and look forward to that debate during committee. I believe that this budget, which I think had an opportunity to really make a serious attempt to reduce the burden of government in the province, has in fact not done that. It's a caretaker budget, an election-year budget, that we feel does not meet the needs of the citizens of British Columbia. I think that will be borne out in the debate in the months and certainly years ahead.
I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage a better dialogue with British Columbians on the state of the province's books. I know the minister goes out on a prebudget tour, which is sometimes a month to a month and a half in duration.
Hon. E. Cull: No, it's three and a half.
W. Hurd: Three and a half months in duration, the minister suggests. I think that there needs to be a greater degree of consultation with the people of the province.
I hope that she'll also listen to recommendations even from those parties that she might not be philosophically aligned with, such as the B.C. Business Council, the Fraser Institute or others which have definite convictions about how governments should be accounting for the dollars they spend. I'm sure that she'd hear a great deal of concern about how we deal with financial accounts in the province of British Columbia and the amount of debt that has been created on the books of Crown corporations. I know those will be issues that will raised at considerable length during the upcoming election in the province, whenever that should be. I welcome the opportunity during committee to go through these budget implementation measures in greater detail.
A. Warnke: I just want to make a few comments following the comments made by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock. In particular, since we're talking about the principle of the bill, generally what's here, of course, addresses a number of taxes. I suppose one could make the argument that, well, this is a matter of housecleaning and really not much else. Perhaps there are a couple of clauses that, in fact, do that.
On the other hand, what does attract attention -- it's something that I just want to focus a bit of attention on -- is that.... Even if it is just one case, it allows a Crown corporation to essentially lift the ceiling of an outstanding debt, as is the case with amending the Ferry Corporation Act. In fact, we increase the borrowing limit from $460 million to $730 million.
[ Page 13713 ]
What I have a problem with is whether this is the beginning of some slippery slope. If we as the opposition were actually to concede to this, then perhaps there would be a precedent set with the Ferry Corporation having that ability, and now some other Crown corporations, and so on. The fact is that there should be something out there -- I thought the legislation was pretty clear that there is something -- where the $460 million borrowing limit is it. It's not something where you borrow up to that amount. It's not the incentive to borrow up to that amount; that was supposed to be the limit. If there is a perception, perhaps by those who run this specific Crown corporation and other Crowns as well, that, "Well, we can change at any time" -- in this case from $460 million to $730 million....
I think everyone on this side appreciates some of the problems that B.C. Ferries is going through, and all the rest of it. The fact is that making such a significant change -- from $460 million to $730 million -- sends kind of a signal that today it's $730 million and maybe tomorrow it will be $1 billion. It's that slippery slope.
I would encourage the minister in the summary remarks to make it very clear that in fact this is not meant to be some sort of precedent, that this is a very specific case that deals with some very specific problems of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. If an elaboration is made by the minister, I'd appreciate that. We will obviously explore this at committee stage later on, but it's that kind of thing I really want to draw attention to in second reading. Is there going to be a problem of setting some sort of precedent? The fact is that it's put in some sort of package of amending taxes...well, all over the place. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock pointed to the Corporation Capital Tax Act, and what happens here goes to a minimum effort, I suppose, to really make the appropriate changes that are going to have some significant impact on the mining industry and other industries.
As a matter of fact, what shows up in many of the clauses here is the impact and effect on the mining industry. Perhaps we could encourage the government to have another re-examination of the state of the mining industry and of where we are going in this province with regard to the mining industry. I am not convinced that some of the proposals put forward here really go a long way to addressing some of the significant problems of the mining industry. In that I share some sentiments expressed already by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock.
There are a number of areas here that I think deserve some further examination, which we will obviously take up at a later stage. Perhaps in the summary remarks it would be appropriate for the minister who introduced this bill to at least suggest how concerns that have been expressed on this side may be alleviated. If so, you never know -- maybe we'll turn right around and support it.
J. Dalton: I'd just like to make a couple of comments about this bill, which of course is part of this unhappy budget that the province is experiencing for the current fiscal year. I would say that I think we can accuse the Finance minister of tinkering with various statutes that we see -- six of them in this particular bill. I would suggest to the hon. Finance minister and her colleagues that, instead of tinkering.... Why don't they do the obvious thing, as we on this side have constantly called for? Instead of tinkering with the Corporation Capital Tax Act, repeal it; get rid of it. It's clearly a disincentive to investment in this province -- without question.
If I recall correctly, the Premier was trotting around the Far East not too long ago telling business people in China and Hong Kong or wherever he may have touched down -- maybe Burma, for all I know.... Maybe, since the Premier was suggesting to people that this Corporation Capital Tax Act was perhaps short-lived, it would have been appropriate for our Finance minister today to be presenting a bill getting rid of that particular tax. There's a word of advice for the Finance minister.
My colleague from Richmond-Steveston has just commented -- and appropriately so -- on the increase in debt under the Ferry Corporation Act. That's hardly small change, hon. Speaker. Increasing the borrowing limit from $460 million to $730 million is not going to get this province out of its unhappy financial state. We've run up an extra billion in debt, and this sort of thing is not going to help the cause; it's going to further hinder it.
The Home Owner Grant Act. I think back to the raging controversy when this government first brought in the proposal to get rid of the homeowner grant, and of course they had to backtrack -- in large part, I guess, because the then-Minister of Tourism had a lot of constituents in her own riding of Vancouver-Point Grey squawking at her. Of course, that meant that this government had to rethink its rather poor planning.
I'd just point out, hon. Speaker, to the minister and the government: stop tinkering....
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I was not referring to the Finance minister's riding; I was referring to another minister's riding in Vancouver, which I am sure precipitated the tax revolt and the controversy over the initial proposal to dump the homeowner grant. It just restates the very point I am making: this government is tinkering. It's tinkering with that act; it's tinkering with many others.
This government has no financial plan. It's driving business out of this province, and Bill 2 doesn't do anything to help. I think it hinders. Perhaps the Finance minister will take that advice to heart and we will see some significant legislative change, but not this rather superficial material that we have in front of us.
R. Neufeld: One should never let the opportunity go by to stand in the House and speak to anything that has to do with the budget prepared by this government. It certainly is incumbent upon the opposition to bring forward ideas and criticisms we have of what we feel is an inadequate budget, one that doesn't truly represent to the people of British Columbia the state of affairs.
We see changes made constantly, every year, with the Budget Measures Implementation Act and the corporation capital tax -- which was a regressive tax to start with. I think the government has admitted that. The Premier is on record as saying that he's going to remove the corporation capital tax at some future time. We're not exactly sure when, but maybe at
[ Page 13714 ]
some point in time it will be removed. So that, along with many other taxes initiated by this government that have subsequently been removed, such as the tax on used vehicles and trade-ins.... We see the government trying to backtrack a little bit, trying to cover up -- maybe that's not the correct word -- a little of the mess they have put British Columbia in. It's no secret to most people that have followed the financial aspects of the province that we are in dire straits in British Columbia. The backbench member from Kamloops sits here and laughs. But that is a fact, and it had to have been a fact, because the minister responsible for finances introduced a debt reduction plan. Obviously she must be catching on. You may not be, Mr. Member, but she is. I wish that would have meant a little more than what's really been put forward.
[5:15]
An Hon. Member: What do the Liberals put forward?
R. Neufeld: I won't bite on that one.
Mr. Speaker, you see that the debt of the province has increased in four years by about $8 billion. If you add onto that the commitments this government has made, you could add another $5 billion or $6 billion. On top of that, they've had an injection of about $850 million from the Columbia River Treaty process as well as from their privatization fund. When you put all those numbers together....
In the last full budget of the last administration, the total debt was only about $17.5 billion. These people have almost doubled it, if you add in all the promises they have made. That's unacceptable -- and it's pretty evident in section 2, with respect to the Ferry Corporation Act, where they increase the borrowing limit from $460 million to $730 million. I think everybody in British Columbia understands and can relate to the fact that we have to improve all the services, the Ferry Corporation being one of them. If there are more people to carry between Victoria and Vancouver, so be it, but that's a dramatic increase. You cannot keep up; you cannot sustain that type of growth. What you do is increase expectations of British Columbians that cannot be met in the future.
The debt that this province is in now is unmanageable. The debt-servicing cost for government purposes only, for the overspending on the credit card -- and not all of it is attributable to this government, but a good portion of it is -- has doubled in four years. I've often said that all we have to do is look to Ottawa to find out what happens when you allow interest rates and debt payment charges to double. It snowballs so quickly that soon you cannot keep up to it. It's evident in this act.
We see, also, changes to the homeowner grant. That was another initiative by this government -- to take the homeowner grant away from people. Now they're seeing that maybe they have to change it; now they're raising the rate to $475,000.
This is a government in total disarray when it comes to spending of any kind; it cannot control spending. It's evident in the Ministry of Social Services. I'll use that one for an example. In two years, they increased the budget by $900 million -- $900 million in two years, on a budget that they started out with at $1.7 billion. That kind of debt is not sustainable. By no stretch of the imagination -- even the member from Kamloops can't laugh that one off -- can we keep up that kind of spending. On top of that, this government has not taken into account aboriginal land claims that are coming. The cost of those.... They haven't taken into account that $400 million less that will be coming next year from the federal government, and $800 million the year after. Those are substantial dollar amounts that this government has not addressed in any way, shape or form in this budget, and it should be called to account for it.
Obviously, when the budget was prepared they were intending to go to an election and thought they didn't have to deal with it. Maybe now they're going to have to live another year -- who knows? -- and they're going to have to deal with it. The debt repayment plan that was proposed...
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: ...actually deals with it after the election when someone else has to do it. That's what is so unpalatable and unconscionable with this government. It's not fair to British Columbians in any way.
This government has put forward a debt repayment plan. When they took office in 1991, the net debt to GDP was 12 percent. They estimate it's going to take them 15 years to get back to that. When they entered the starting gate, that's what it was. Why didn't we just temper our wishes a little bit, cut back on what we wanted to spend, cut back on what we thought we should spend, and spend wisely?
Maybe they should have spent in the rest of the province like they spent in my constituency, and we wouldn't have increased the debt at all. That's maybe what should have happened. Obviously it's been spent in NDP strongholds across the province; that's evident by the previous Minister of Finance talking about spending money -- shovelling it off the back of a truck. If we spend much more in the lower mainland, or on this lower part of the Island, we're going to tip it into the ocean. I guess that's fact; that's exactly what has happened. Where has the $9 billion been spent? I think if we look closely, we'll see that the majority of it is in the lower mainland. I said many times that people in the north have not received their share, whether it's from this administration or the last administration. We have not received our share of what was spent, and that doesn't mean that I want to spend more on top of what they've already spent. I want a fair sharing of the pie; that's what we want. Members opposite constantly talk about: "Do you want to spend more? Do you want to spend more?" No. We want the pie cut up just a little bit differently, so it's a little fairer to all British Columbians.
Tax-supported debt by this government has increased by 56 percent in four years -- 56 percent. That's astronomical. It's unsustainable, and British Columbians know it's unsustainable. Obviously that minister is responding to pressure that she's receiving from British Columbians all across the province, because she did initiate a debt reduction plan, albeit a poor one and one that I really am not too sure means a lot. It's symbolic at best, I guess. But, hon. Speaker, maybe they are starting to listen. British Columbians are saying: "No. We cannot keep up with this." The Chamber Bulletin I just received today talks about the same thing: "Chamber Concerned That Government Spending Still Increasing." You can go down to New York and show them your fancy little books, and you can tell them that yes, we have all this under control, but if you spend so much more than you take in, and you continue that on a steep upward curve, you're going to be in trouble at some point in time.
[ Page 13715 ]
An Hon. Member: What about our credit rating?
R. Neufeld: If we continue this way, our credit rating certainly will drop. But whether our credit rating is good or not.... It's obvious the member opposite really cannot relate to credit ratings. What they're giving us is a good credit rating. Does it mean that we, willy-nilly, borrow absolutely as much money and shovel it out as quickly as we can because we still have a good credit rating? That's obviously the way this government has worked. It's obviously the way they think about spending in the province.
Now they say they're going to start cutting spending; they're going to cut borrowing. What does that tell you, Mr. Speaker? It tells you that they have built all they are going to build, so now they are going to cut borrowing. What happens to all the rest of the province that hasn't received anything yet? And there is a good part of the province that has not received even their minuscule part of the fair share. But here we have the government now intending to cut borrowing because they know they've reached the pinnacle and that their credit rating will change.
The credit rating shouldn't be indicative of just being able to borrow as much as you can bring home in a pail. It shouldn't have anything to do with it. You should be able to maintain a good credit rating, especially a province like ours -- absolutely the best credit rating. But that doesn't mean we just go out and borrow, borrow, borrow just for the sake of saying that we have a good credit rating and let's borrow some more. That's absolutely ridiculous.
This government should be ashamed of what it has done. It will go down in history.... If there is one thing this government will go down in history about, it is how terribly they have handled the finances of this province. That will be down in history forever. This NDP government will live with that forever.
There are changes -- taxation. I'm not saying that we don't have to borrow money. We've always borrowed money for some of those facilities -- for hospitals and for schools -- but at a rate that we could afford. It's false to say that British Columbia didn't borrow moneys for schools over many years and that that's why we had to borrow so much money to build schools in the last four years. Ministry of Education information states that from 1979 on, British Columbia spent less on educational facilities than the average in all of Canada in only one year. Other than that one year, we were above the average in all of Canada. They all talk about not spending any money on schools, and that's incorrect.
I too would like all children in British Columbia to be in beautiful schools. That would be great. Get rid of the portables. Hey, that would be great, but we can't afford that. There comes the reality, and we have to look at it and say: "What can we afford, and what should we be spending on education to provide a good education for our children?" There have to be priorities, and sometimes it's going to be teaching in portables.
I can remember when my children took shifts going to school in my school district. One group went in the morning; one group went in the afternoon.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I don't know. Both of my children came through the school system with relatively good marks. In fact, I think a lot of children did.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I don't know. I don't know what really happened. We think we have to have a multimillion-dollar facility for every child in the province. I think we have to look at what we can afford and prioritize it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time to stand up and quickly speak on Bill 2, and I look forward to the minister's comments.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to speak for just a few moments on Bill 2, because I'd like to address some of the hon. member's concerns. I'm extremely grateful that he has put some of the Reform Party views forward once again so people can realize just where they stand.
For the last 20 minutes we have listened to the member for Peace River North tell how he feels that we have our priorities wrong; that we have borrowed too much money -- "Where is this money going?" -- that somehow replacing ferries that were constructed 30 years ago to serve an Island population of half of what it is now is a waste of money. I can understand him saying that from the Peace River, because there is not a lot of water or a lot of ferries up there.
But I can tell him that there have been tens of thousands of jobs created on Vancouver Island by this government, and that tens of thousands of people have moved here from across this country to Vancouver Island, and that they need to get across. Commerce, the very lifeblood of this province, and in particular this island, requires a ferry fleet. After 30 years, this ferry fleet is at the end of its age and needs to be replaced. Unfortunately, his government didn't engage in the forward planning that was required to replace that ferry fleet, making investments when they should have been made. So what happened is that demand has built up...
Interjections.
M. Farnworth: I see I've touched another nerve.
...and so we have had to make those investments.
He has sat there and said that maybe the portables are fine, that the ships are fine. Well, I can tell him that there are high schools in our area in the lower mainland -- in Port Coquitlam and in Richmond -- that are currently on shifts. He may want to add a midnight shift, but I can tell you that the parents in those school districts don't want to see a midnight shift added to accommodate the students. They want the government to make the investments in school construction that are required so kids can get a decent education and can take advantage of the latest technological developments in computers. Schools have those things; that's where the money has gone. That's where the money is going.
[5:30]
That has required capital investment. It has required the government to go out and borrow the money, because for years, when they were doing spending increases of 12 percent and 12 percent and 12 percent, they weren't investing in the infrastructure. We have had to go to places like New York to show what we are doing, and the result has been, "Yes, we understand why you have to do this"; confirmation of our credit ratings, consistently; rated by the bond-rating agencies in New York -- the financial institutions that matter, the
[ Page 13716 ]
financial institutions of record -- as having the most dynamic economy of any province in this country, where only 8 1/2 cents on the dollar is required to go to debt repayment, the lowest of any province in the country. They said: "Look, we're concerned, you know, about the increase in debt."And we said: "Yes, we understand. Here's where it's going." We are going to put in place a debt repayment plan. Do you know what, hon. Speaker? It gets rid of that deficit-debt over a period of ten years. Do you want to know something, hon. Speaker? In the next-door province of Alberta....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Peace River North trumpets Alberta and the Ralph Klein approach. They're going to take 25 years to do what we're going to do in ten.
Our plan protects and creates jobs through infrastructure investment that the hon. member doesn't seem to want to make. He talks a good line: "Well, we could only do what we can afford." I'd like him and his candidates at the next election to stand in my constituency, along with those of the opposition, and say which of those high schools, hospitals and road improvements they couldn't afford. For 20 years they didn't make them. The wealth generated by that construction is reinvested into the community. Those jobs....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River North is fully aware of the standing orders, and speaking from his seat is certainly not condoned. Please continue, hon. member.
M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I understand the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Peace River North, because it's hard to defend the indefensible, and he's giving a valiant effort.
I can tell you that when they stand up and ask, "Where is the money going?"; and have the nerve to address members of this House who were starved by a government that for 20 years would not build and make investments for schools and roads in this province; and have the gall to say, "My riding isn't getting anything," I have to take that opportunity to stand up and say what their policies would mean. They'd mean a midnight shift in School District 43. I know that's not what the parents of School District 43 want. They support this government when it comes to building schools.
This Bill 2 puts in place the measures that are required to maintain that infrastructure spending, to satisfy the people who are concerned about our debt, and to bring our debt down over ten years to levels that were set by business and labour leaders of this province, who set targets.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The member says just labour leaders. Well, I'd like to tell the hon. member that when you create jobs in this province, as we're doing, you bring both sides to the table; you bring both business and labour to the table. You bring both of them, hon. member, not one -- that's the old style, pitting one against the other. The new style is to bring both to the table, and that's what this government's doing, because we recognize that that's how you create jobs. You know, when you're looking at making changes to protect medicare, which is what this government is doing, you bring both sides to the table -- both labour and management.
As I said, the goal here is to achieve targets to maintain our fiscal framework. We did that. We got the best business minds and the best labour minds in this province to come up with realistic targets that were acceptable to the financial communities. And you know what? We met those targets and we beat those targets. This government is committed to jobs, to medicare and to making investments this province can afford. Bill 2 introduces those measures which enable that to be accomplished. That is why it has been a pleasure to rise to debate those members. I understand why I am touching so many nerves over there, but Bill 2 is worthy of support. It is a credit to a Finance minister who recognizes the need to create jobs, to protect medicare and to ensure that there's no midnight shift for school kids in School District 43.
D. Mitchell: I, too, am looking forward to the minister closing debate on this bill, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. You know, most years in this Legislative Assembly we usually get a bill with a title similar to "Budget Measures Implementation Act," and oftentimes they're not very controversial. Sometimes they're even what we might refer to as housekeeping in nature....
An Hon. Member: Like this one.
D. Mitchell: "Like this one," some might say.
An Hon. Member: Housecleaning.
D. Mitchell: Or housecleaning, as the member for Surrey-White Rock indicates.
We've had some good debate on Bill 2 today, some very stimulating debate, and it makes you wonder whether we're finally having the budget debate that actually never really took place in a meaningful way in this House, because it was truncated.
D. Lovick: You guys weren't that bad, David.
D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo will want to get involved in this debate, too. I sure look forward to what the member for Nanaimo has to say about Bill 2.
We're looking at implementing various aspects of the budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance. This might be called a mini-omnibus bill: it does a lot of different things but nothing in particular, and it doesn't have a single principle. We're debating the principle of the bill, and we're trying to debate the principles of a government that doesn't have any principles either.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo is going to get involved in this debate; I just know it. And I'm looking forward to what he might have to say.
The Minister of Finance made a big deal in her budget about capping the debt. She talked about the debt. In the
[ Page 13717 ]
budget she indicated that there isn't actually just the debt of the province, but that we have three different kinds of debt. She accepts responsibility for one portion of the provincial debt, which now stands at about $28 billion. And there's another portion of the debt that she says is Crown corporation debt, which she says is self-financing. We don't need to worry about that, she says.
There's another portion of the debt which is the responsibility of her colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment: so-called infrastructure debt. But she doesn't have any plan to deal with that. I wonder why we don't have another section in Bill 2 that puts a cap on the so-called infrastructure debt of her colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment. That's something that's missing in Bill 2, and I wonder why it's not here. I suppose that when we get into committee stage, I could ask the minister that.
I wonder if, when she closes debate on second reading of this bill, she could tell us why the government didn't include a cap in this bill on the debt that is being accumulated rapidly by her colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment through the B.C. 21 program. She tells us that there's no need to control that debt; there's no need to develop a plan for that debt. Is that because he's still really the Minister of Finance? Who is the real Minister of Finance, and why isn't that minister here today to address this?
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, has no principle, yet we're debating it in principle. We should pass second reading so we can get into committee stage and force the Minister of Finance to answer some specific questions about specific clauses in this bill. If she can find any principle at all in the bill, maybe she should address that when she closes debate on second reading.
C. Tanner: I rise to speak on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995. As the previous speaker just said, it incorporates a number of small acts that they want to change in one fell swoop, when in actual fact each one of the segments of this bill deserves attention.
The bill includes the Corporation Capital Tax Act, for example. If they were going to move amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act, I would suggest they change the whole thing and throw it out, because it's not doing any good at all in the province. All it's doing is adding an impediment to the ability to invest in British Columbia. As it is now, the corporation capital tax is acting to the detriment of the province.
We also have the Ferry Corporation Act, an act which, while fairly innocuous, probably needs considerable investigation, because as usual, this government slides a bunch of acts together in one multiple bill. We never know what their intentions are. We have to give them very close scrutiny, because generally speaking, there's some hidden agenda that is not available to us at first blush.
The Home Owner Grant Act is another typical example of what this NDP government does. They have this attitude toward anybody who has been either lucky enough or frugal enough to invest in what is probably the major investment of their lives -- their home -- and they want to tax those people out of their houses. We had the classic illustration of this perhaps a year and a half ago, when this Finance minister's predecessor inadvertently stumbled into this very amendment and created an uproar in the house of the then minister for Tourism, the member who sits for Point Grey. She was inundated with calls from frugal members of the public who had put their life savings into these dwellings, and through no fault of their own, they were finding themselves with an asset worth a lot more money than they could find the taxes to pay for. These taxes are demanded of them every year on the basis of what that house is worth on the market. It's not their fault that those people who had the foresight, intelligence and acumen to put their money into their houses should have to find themselves paying taxes that are inhibiting their ability to continue to live in those houses. You have to wonder why the Minister of Finance would now make this change again, when it was so badly accepted the last time they attempted it.
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, as was previously mentioned, is a number of individual amendments to individual bills which include, for example, the Income Tax Act and the Mining Act. We are not comfortable with the way the minister is proceeding on this basis, particularly when we hear members from Coquitlam and others from that side of the House telling us what a great job they are doing and how they're defending the public from the burdens of debt, which is not the case at all.
[5:45]
I can quote to the minister. Maybe she doesn't read the same correspondence that I do, but in my hand I have the opinion of the chambers of commerce of this province, for example. In their finance and corporate relations portfolio they talk about the accumulated provincial debt. "The chamber remains concerned about the climbing, accumulating debt the province is incurring. As shown in the 1994-95 provincial budget, the total direct guaranteed indebtedness increased 59.3 percent since 1991." That might give comfort and solace to those members on that side of the House; it certainly gives none to the members on this side of the House, and it certainly gives none to the business community. "The chamber believes that the provincial government must make the elimination of the accumulated provincial debt, its annual debt-servicing charges, a top priority." That doesn't tell me that the chambers of commerce, who represent the business and investment climate of this province, are comfortable with it. It tells me they're very concerned about it.
There are a number of members, I think, who probably want to speak to this bill. I think it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to close debate until many members have had an opportunity to talk to this subject.
Quoting further from the chamber of commerce: "...that the provincial government sets as its highest priority the achievement of an annual balanced budget...." The joke in the business community is that this minister and her predecessor in this government don't even know what a balanced budget is. Their claim of a balanced budget this time is obviously patent nonsense. They're not taking the debt into account. By their own admission, the Minister of Finance is being advised by her own officials that they're not looking after the debt, that the so-called financial deficit plan, which is ongoing, is not going to work, and that in fact they are accumulating more debt. Their debts are going up instead of going down. They don't appear to have any plan in hand to wipe out the debt of the province that is giving the business community, the investment community and the offshore investment community so much concern. They are continuing to borrow money at an alarming rate. The debt's going up;
[ Page 13718 ]
consequently, the problems that we have today are being made manifestly worse by the actions of this government.
The provincial chamber says: "The highest priority of the government should be to get rid of the debt -- the ultimate elimination of the accumulated provincial debt through spending reductions with no increase in taxes, and through economic expansion enhanced by revenue generation." Revenue generation appears to me to be a complete anathema to the members on the opposite side, for the simple reason that they're not helping the business community, which provides the jobs and investment in this province. They're not creating a climate for the business community in which they can enhance the investment in and income of this province. They are doing exactly the opposite; they are creating a climate where the business community, both in-house, if you like -- in British Columbia -- and offshore -- doesn't want to invest in this province.
It's not the government that creates jobs. The government has never created any jobs except patronage jobs. The only jobs that the government has ever created are those jobs for their friends within their own government. They have expanded government, but that doesn't create anything. All that does is just create more debt in the long run.
What they should be doing is creating a climate where the business community, particularly the small business community, can create the jobs which the government is incapable of -- unless of course, they want to get into the government-created job, like they are in the United States, of building prisons. The biggest business in the United States these days is building prisons. That is the sort of thing that they might want to get into; they might want to be building those sorts of structures because they can't find anything else to do within the business community to help create the climate that business wants.
Due to the lack of investment by this government in tourism, for example.... They've put in a mere $5 million; in fact, the amount of money they have invested in tourism is exactly the same as in 1989. For the first three years they were in government they reduced the amount of money in tourism. Due to that fact, we have not created the amount of tourism success that we could have had, and any success that we have created is really generated by the fact that the Canadian dollar is falling, as against the American dollar, and more people are coming up here to invest their money. It is a happy coincidence, but they can barely take credit for it.
In fact, you could make a case that this government is creating a situation where the Canadian dollar, because they're accumulating debt, is getting weaker on their account. It wouldn't be fair to blame it entirely on this government, but we certainly can blame it on all the governments in Canada -- the federal and all the provincial governments. And you certainly can blame this government's share in helping the Canadian dollar be weaker. As a consequence of that weaker dollar, we are getting more tourists. But it's hardly consistent that on the one hand their very policies are creating the weak Canadian dollar, and on the other hand they can take credit for the increase in tourism that's generated because of the weaker Canadian dollar.
For the benefit of the minister, the chamber also recommends that the provincial government, in cooperation with business and industry, work to educate citizens of the province about the economic consequences of cross-border shopping in terms of lost employment and tax revenues that fund the provincial programs and services, and develop marketing programs to promote shopping at home. The House might know that in a previous life I was in small business, and that would be self-evident to somebody like me. But I suspect that there are members, particularly on the other side, for whom that wouldn't be too obvious. If Canadians want to enjoy the benefits and the fruits of living in this country, it's this country where they should spend their dollar. It's this country that they should help promote, because a dollar spent in Canada helps jobs in Canada and helps the economy in Canada, whereas a dollar spent in the United States helps their economy. While we have a nice working relationship with the United States, it would be foolish to spend your dollar down there when you can spend it at home and help your neighbour have a job. So the recommendation of the chamber in that respect is, I think, a good one and one the minister should take advantage of.
The finance and corporate relations section of the chamber of commerce also would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance the machinery and equipment tax of 1994. The chamber has consistently recommended to the provincial government to eliminate the British Columbia social service tax that is applied to the purchase, installation and maintenance of the machinery and equipment and to the energy and supplies consumed in the production of manufactured and processed goods for resale.
It seems to me that the government wants it both ways: it wants to tax, on one hand, the very industry which is raising the taxes and putting in place the investment climate which stimulates goods, stimulates business and stimulates jobs, and at the same time it wants to tax them to the point where they can no longer continue to operate in this country and will be tempted to go to other places.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I move adjournment of the debate to another day.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
[ Page 13719 ]
L. Stephens: I have the list of requests that I made of the minister yesterday, but I would like to read it into the record. These are for administration support services. I would like the estimated operating costs for public service travel, professional services, ministry advertising, statutory notes, annual reports and non-discretionary publications, ministry communications and what will be accounted for under "other expenditures."
In the recoveries area, I would like to know the estimated recoveries within the Ministry of Education and external to the Ministry of Education. I would appreciate those numbers and relevant information. I will make the list available.
There are a couple of other areas that we discussed yesterday that I'd like to go back to and touch on briefly. One is the issue of computers and technology in the schools. Yesterday the minister talked briefly about the disparity between the schools and the types of technology, the lack of technology and the need to have integrated and compatible systems in place. He also talked about the goal of having a 1 to 3 ratio in the schools for computers. I would like to know if there is a defined program in place to achieve these goals. What is the time line? What are the issues around introducing technology, and are local area networks going to be available at the school levels?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The goal that we are working toward is, indeed, 1 to 3 at the secondary level and 1 to 6 at the elementary level. As I said yesterday, we're at about 1 to 7 now, I believe. So we don't have a great deal of progress to make in order to meet our immediate target at the elementary level, but we have some way to go with respect to meeting the target at the secondary.
In the block funds provided to the school boards over the last three years -- in each of those years -- there is $10 million for technology. This year, in addition to that $10 million, we have, I believe, the special technology fund of $10.7 million. With respect to that, I made reference yesterday to a plan we will be making public within a week or two, with respect to how we intend to roll out that additional $10.7 million.
L. Stephens: Would the minister also at that time be talking about the measurements that will be in place to measure the progress of the technology program and whether or not it's being effective? Will those evaluations be made public?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member will see when the technology plan is rolled out, it speaks to the long term, in addition to what we are going to do this year with the $10.7 million. It deals with some of the issues with respect to centralized purchasing and some of the benefits, keeping in mind as well the sensitivity of the regions with respect to purchasing policy.
I guess what we're trying to put in place is some technology that goes along with the new curricula we're putting out, in order to make some progress on both fronts. The investments we intend to make in the technology areas are very much part of the relevance agenda of the ministry and also part of the equality of opportunity aspects of the ministry's agenda. If we are going to attract young men and women into a variety of career paths, we need to have some good technology available in those career paths. And then, too, we must be sensitive to the needs of our professional staff.
It's not easy these days being a teacher, when technology is changing so quickly and there are sometimes 12-year-olds or ten-year-olds -- I've met some extremely bright eight-year-olds -- who seem to know more about computers than almost all of us. So we have to recognize the needs for professional development amongst our staff, and some of these funds will be used to accomplish in-servicing with respect to that technology.
L. Stephens: In respect to in-service and professional development of teachers, I agree that's an area that needs to be very seriously looked at and even restructured.
I wonder if the minister has some ideas on changes to teacher-training -- university instruction -- around those new fields which teachers in the classroom are faced with, not just in technology, but in other areas as well. I wonder if the minister is going to be making some recommendations towards teacher certification around issues of these changes in the classrooms today.
[2:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I meet regularly with the deans of the various teacher-training faculties around the province. I have spoken to them on numerous occasions. In addition to that, I have made visits to those faculties and have spoken at length with them, both individually and as a group, about the changes that I think need to be made in teacher education: not only additional emphasis on technology -- and I will say that there's a very positive response from the teaching institutions with respect to that -- but also a little more inclusion, if you will, of courses and training relevant to special needs children, which is another area where I feel that the teacher-training programs could perhaps be improved.
L. Stephens: Does the ministry perceive that time is of the essence in this area? Is there an urgency on the part of the ministry to see these changes happen vis-a-vis those new skills that teachers need in the classroom? In consultation with your counterpart in Skills, Training and Labour, perhaps there is an interministerial direction happening to move these kinds of changes forward a little more quickly in order to make the changes necessary at the university training institutes for teachers coming into our system to have the kind of follow-up, mentoring and in-classroom help as the new teachers come into the system and progress through their first year and into their second year. I'm wondering whether or not there is a look at providing more resources for new teachers to enable some of the teachers who have been in the system for a while to acquire these new skills.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Certainly there is some sense of urgency, which I have conveyed to the universities, with respect to technology and to changes that they might make in their curriculum. But I also recognize that the final determination as to the content of the curricula are decisions made by those institutions themselves. We can certainly make the system's views known, and I'm sure that the same attitude prevails in the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
With respect to the ongoing training of our own teachers, there is a need at all levels of experience -- those who have been in the system for 25 years and those who have been in there for but a few months. It may well be that the latter have more familiarity on an ongoing basis with the kind of technol-
[ Page 13720 ]
ogy that we need to see on an increasing basis in the schools, because the universities are the source of some of that technology. I have encouraged them to become involved in software, for example, in partnership with private corporations in order to deliver into the system some of the high-quality software that we need. I do so for a couple of reasons. First, we need good software and good made-in-B.C. software -- if we can obtain it. By doing that, we draw the universities and their faculties deeper into the technology. That will result in more technology and knowledge of technology being imparted to their students as they graduate into our system.
L. Stephens: The other area that I wanted to talk briefly about was testing -- specifically, the controversial testing results that were done last spring in the province. I understand that some details of that were made public last week. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what happened, what went wrong, what changes are being made and when we'll be ready to repeat this exercise with better controls and better delivery.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Ministry staff made a good attempt at obtaining some data from the system, with respect to the performance of our students, which could be compared to some data that was available from 1988. There were certain challenges in doing that. First, our schools today include far more special needs and ESL children than in 1988. Also, up to 1988, children were more used to taking multiple-choice exams. They had been coached on, and had developed, strategies for taking such exams. In the test that was carried out in 1994 we had a situation where some concerns started to arise with respect to the validity of the results. Did schools follow the same process in 1993 as in 1988 as to which students took the test? Some could be excluded at the choice of the teacher. Also, were they equally prepared to take that kind of test? I understand that some teachers gave, if you will, some preparatory work with respect to how to take multiple-choice questions. Perhaps they did a practice or two to allow children to understand the strategies, but in other instances, apparently, teachers did not.
For these reasons, we became somewhat uncertain. We hired a well-known expert, Dr. Rogers from the University of Alberta, to do an evaluation. He did the evaluation and said that with whatever efforts were made, in his judgment the data was not valid. My staff's recommendation and my immediate concurrence was that we should not publish those results. In a scientific sense, any time you have data that is not valid, it muddies the water to release the data. But in this instance, there were some who raised spurious concerns that this was somehow a cover-up, that somehow or other the results had demonstrated that the system had not performed well under Year 2000 or other educational changes and that the results confirmed that and now we were busy trying to cover it up. That was nonsense -- utter nonsense. It was a case of a set of data whose validity had been called into question and whose validity, if you will, was not approved by an expert in the field. Because the allegations of cover-up were raised and in order to put an end to that particular argument, I authorized the ministry to release the data, but to wrap sufficient words around it to make it clear to anybody who looked at the data that in fact we did not believe the results were valid.
L. Stephens: I've been unable to obtain a copy of whatever was released, so I would appreciate it if I could get that. I think the independent assessment is a good idea, and I would encourage the minister to continue along those lines -- having independent assessments done of different tests that come along from time to time. It is true that the Year 2000 was one of the reasons cited for perhaps these tests being less than useful.
I wonder if the minister could explain the different method of testing used in the SAIP that does the comparison Canadian-wide. What kinds of testing were used in this particular one? Were they both multiple choice? What was the difference for the kinds of testing methods that were used?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the case of the provincial learning assessments, all children take the test, except those identified by the teacher as being special needs of a certain category. It was the inconsistency from classroom to classroom as to how that was done that was the root cause of the validity question. In the SAIP, that is done on a sampling basis, rather than on a census basis. Only some schools are selected. Because a smaller sample takes the test, it is easier to administer, to get the right kinds of filters in place and to make sure that the selection process for who writes the test is done properly and consistently across the country.
L. Stephens: I just want to make sure that I'm clear here. In the SAIPs, the schools are selected randomly around the country, but all the students in that school or class write it, other than the exempted special needs learners. So I don't really see where there would be a problem in the province, simply because you've selected a number of schools, as well, to do the provincial learning assessment and the same students are rewriting the same tests.
Again, if the difficulties in the province were the instructions for who did and who didn't and who was exempt and who wasn't.... Perhaps I'm also asking whether or not there was resistance at the school level to having students participate in this testing, in any way.
[3:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To put the whole issue in context: we have a strong conviction that the 1994 problem related to the anomaly of the particular test and to the particular selection and the inconsistency of selection from school to school and, sometimes, from classroom to classroom. It was that single anomaly, if you will, that calls the validity of that particular set of data into question.
Also, it was a test of grade 4 students who had virtually no experience in taking multiple-choice-style tests up to that point in time, whereas the SAIP tests occur at about grade 7 -- 13-year-olds -- and grade 10 -- 16-year-olds -- on a sampling basis. Those students will have had the kind of multiple-choice testing experiences over the years, and we're satisfied that the results of those tests were valid countrywide.
L. Stephens: For this set of estimates and for this year coming up, is there room for a repeat...? Is the ministry going back and having a look at what happened and redoing this test again at some point -- either this year or the following -- with new criteria and with a little stricter guidelines? Is there some provision made for this to be repeated in a little more controlled way or a little better organized way?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We will have some additional data published reasonably shortly with respect to a provincial
[ Page 13721 ]
learning assessment done in the fall of 1993 on language. The test done in the spring of 1994 was a specific test carried out, if you will, to try to get a data point to compare to another test that happened to be carried out in 1988. As I say, it turned out that we have an anomaly.
So we do have data that will be published from a '93 assessment in the school year for the estimates at hand. We will be doing the science and math assessment. Those are the ones we will do in conjunction with the third international math and science assessment. We will not then get back to language for three years, but we will have a valid set of data from 1993 to make the subsequent comparison.
L. Stephens: Well, you have the provincial learning assessments of 1993 in language, and you did a further one in spring 1994 around language, as well. I'm having difficulty, then, understanding why you decided to have another set in 1994, even though you said it was to compare with 1988. If you were prepared to go through the exercise in the spring, 1994 as a comparison to 1988, it would seem to me.... And if we accept that it's benchmarking -- and frankly I would agree with you that we need these benchmarks -- what I'm now asking is....
I believe that the reasons for holding these tests were valid, and I'm simply asking why it's not being tried again and why you're not going back to find the information you were looking for in the first place. Why aren't you simply looking at the mechanics of the operation and making that efficient and effective as to what you were looking for in the first place?
I think we do need benchmarks around these issues in the schools, so I would really encourage the ministry to look at continuing and setting up another test in the languages, rather than waiting for another few years to go by. That's really what my question is. If it was valid then, it should be valid now. With some more work on how the process was set up, it could still be valid. I'd like to know if the minister intends to do that or whether he is prepared to wait another two or three years.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've just been provided with some additional detailed information that might help explain, and I've also just inquired into what it might cost if we were able to carry out a successful test. It's about $100,000 in order to do a test at grade 4 only.
The problem, though, that was uncovered in the review of Dr. Rogers is more complicated than that. Apparently, in the 1988 test, there was a portion of the test that was so-called open-ended, and there was a portion of multiple choice. For whatever reason -- I cannot even speculate on it -- the raw data from the open-ended portion of that test has been lost; it no longer exists. Only the multiple-choice part of the test exists. To try to come up with another test now that somehow duplicates the conditions of 1988 is apparently impossible, in Dr. Rogers' view. So that's why the issue has been dropped and why we will revert to using the assessments from 1993 and then the repeat of that provincial learning assessment in the four-year cycle.
L. Stephens: Thank you, Minister. That makes things much more definitive and a lot more helpful. We could have probably not gone on at some length, had that been part of the original answer. However, we will leave that one.
One other issue from yesterday was the North Vancouver School District's perennial problems and difficulties with the changes to the funding formula that go back some years. They, along with a few other districts, have a historical shortfall in funding. As you know, the way this funding formula was set up, each year they continually have that shortfall that they view as rightfully theirs. With the changes to the funding formula -- not the ones that have been so far announced, but any further ones -- has the ministry taken a look at addressing some of the concerns of these districts? I believe there's about 13 of them that range in amounts of money with these historical shortfalls they have had. I understand that the North Vancouver district is now facing somewhere around a $3 million shortfall which is going to be very difficult. I also know that they have met with the minister about this issue. Could the minister indicate what the ministry's plans are to help these particular districts overcome this historical imbalance?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am aware from the meeting held recently with a wide variety of stakeholders and representatives from the North Vancouver school district that they are indeed wrestling with a large problem. They recently had permission to carry a deficit from year to year, but they're having a difficult time getting out from under that deficit. It keeps moving one year ahead as they make payments, so to speak. They will no doubt be coming to me formally in the near future to seek authorization, as they must, to run a deficit again. Typically we call for boards to pay off. When we do grant them the authority to carry forward, we usually call for them to pay off that deficit in one or sometimes two subsequent years.
When we do the review -- the consultation of the operations and maintenance portion of their funding -- and if that review bears out their argument that they were frozen at a point in time that did not fairly represent the operations and maintenance funding that they needed, then they will receive a positive and significant adjustment, if their argument is borne out completely. I should be clear that this will be a redistribution, because other boards will lose amounts of money in order that some, perhaps such as North Vancouver, will benefit. I will look at that very carefully. The consultation will be carried out in an open and fair manner. I will make the next set of changes in the fall, which could then conceivably give North Vancouver some level of comfort. As to doing something with respect to the historical injustice that has been done to them, I think not, because in many, many aspects of our funding -- the geographical adjustments, the transportation adjustments or several others -- many other districts have a history of what they feel is an inequality, and it is not always possible to set everything right. What I would like to do is set the system right now, make sure we have equity now, put that process and distribution mechanism in place and keep it up to date.
L. Stephens: I think the North Vancouver School District would be comforted by the minister's remarks, and I'm sure that it will be calling him shortly to arrange this discussion.
I'd like to move on to student services and special education programs. The Kids At Risk initiative is one that the minister has talked about. I think we've talked about this in other estimates, around some of the social problems that we see coming into the classrooms on a daily basis. The classroom
[ Page 13722 ]
teacher certainly sees these problems and is struggling with them in virtually every classroom in the province, although some more than others, particularly in the lower mainland.
I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the Kids At Risk initiative. What is happening there, how much money is involved and what are some of the programs?
[3:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Of all the initiatives that are underway in education -- and some of them, I believe, are very, very important -- Kids At Risk is to me the most important. In the long run, I believe it is perhaps the most potentially fruitful of those initiatives. The fundamental idea is that rather than expect our teachers and administrators to advise and counsel on all aspects of personal, family, community and social problems, we should think in terms of reorganizing the delivery of government services with the child at the centre, the child's family around the child, and then the range of services that the government may be able to provide around them. Those services range from: counselling from professionals in the Ministry of Social Services; community health; mental health; and the Attorney General's ministry with respect to, perhaps, youth offenders. And there are others.
The idea of Kids At Risk is to try as much as possible to make the school the heart of the community and to move toward the community-school model, where, I believe, we have the greatest possibility of drawing the family into contact with expertise. If it all works out as I hope it does, we will be able to provide a more coherent and more complete set of services to children at risk -- to kids and to their families, who are heavily stressed because of economic or other reasons.
We can deal with some of the longstanding, annoying problems that we deal with every day in the education system and do so at as early an age as possible. I believe that if we can do that, then some problems which currently appear to be intractable in our system will suddenly become solvable, and we will see far more success from those children who would otherwise fall by the wayside somewhere on the way.
The initiative is on a pilot basis now in about 12 districts which submitted proposals that were of a high quality. We will see those run through. The funding for the year just completed was about half a million dollars to those dozen districts to assist them in running those pilots.
L. Stephens: Just to be clear, that was $500,000? The minister nods yes. Thank you.
Could the minister elaborate a little bit about how the programs are delivered, or how this Kids At Risk program is delivered?
We've talked, in other estimates, about resource rooms, parent rooms, and a facility within the school for parents to access help through and for community services to be delivered through. Is this part of Kids At Risk and, if so, what are the community organizations and professional groups involved, and how is that program being delivered out to the families?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The districts selected some schools, and each school where there is a Kids At Risk initiative underway, as part of the process, had to strike a committee that involved the school, the community and various service providers. It is through that committee that the pilot projects are being operated.
The specific item that you mentioned, parents' rooms, is something aside from this. I believe -- and I have said it publicly on many occasions -- that in order to attract more parents into the school and make them feel very comfortable while they are there, it would be very nice to have a parent room with some amenities and some minimal resources attached to that room.
But, of course, at a time when we are facing such horrendous overcrowding problems, to add a parent room into our schools, or to incorporate a parent room even within a new building, would cost substantial amounts of money. And at this point in time, I feel that we do not have that.
However, I encourage all schools, if they have any space whatsoever in their existing facilities, to convert some of their excess space into a community/parent room with some amenities. Some have indeed done that. I've visited schools where they have that.
L. Stephens: Including parents in the schools today is something that I think we need to really focus on -- and parents, I think, feel the same way. Whenever we can actively include parents, actively go out and ask them to participate in various ways, aside from the sports days and hot dog days that have been the norm over the past number of years, I think the better off the whole system will be. If the decision is that involving parents in the education system is important and desirable, then I think there are a number of accommodations that can be worked out around the cost issue. I would encourage the minister to look at being proactive in involving parents in the system in more meaningful ways.
To that point, I am sure the minister is familiar with the Ontario report of the Royal Commission on Learning that was tabled December '94 called For the Love of Learning. A number of recommendations were made there around the issue of parents' involvement in the schools and the role of students. One of the recommendations was that all boards have at least one student member, and that there be a student and youth council, and that the ministry organize a collaborative process for developing a student charter of rights and responsibilities. When we look at involving parents and having parents, students and teachers more accountable in the system, sometimes innovative ideas need to be looked at and addressed.
In this particular one -- a student charter of rights and responsibilities -- the essential elements include a description of the kind of information a student is entitled to receive, the programs and services to which a student is entitled, the responsibilities a student is expected to accept, the role that students are entitled to play in decisions made in the system, and the recourse available if students feel their rights have not been upheld. Included in that is a code of behaviour and other selective policies and procedures that flow from this charter of rights and responsibilities both board and school levels.
I wonder if the minister has any thoughts around those kinds of initiatives that could perhaps help provide some kind of ability for schools -- particularly at the junior secondary and high school levels -- to include students more in the decisions that are made. Up until now decisions have largely been made for them as opposed to having them participate in
[ Page 13723 ]
some of the decision-making that goes on at the board level, at the individual school level and, again, in the junior secondary and the senior secondary schools.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Certainly I think some of the ideas that have come forward from the Ontario commission are worthy of consideration. I think anything that we can do to encourage the real participation of students in the system is good; I will contemplate that advice. I do not have a specific answer for you today, other than to say that, generally speaking, I think the Ontario recommendations are sound.
In some respects we are ahead of Ontario. At least with the parent advisory council, we have it in legislation that every school is guaranteed access through the parent advisory council. As the member well knows, they are a very active group. That's good. It means that we are far more likely to have at least a core of active parents coming into the school on a regular basis. In virtually every school I have gone into, I have met the representative of the parent advisory council. In virtually every district I have been in, I have sat down for informal meetings with the DPAC. I also make it a point, as much as possible, to attend the B.C. Confederation of PACs when they have their meetings.
Early in your last comments you mentioned the involvement of parents. I very much want to tie that into the Kids At Risk initiative. There is some benefit, no doubt, to providing some coordinated government services to the child, but to do that in the absence of providing services to the family is not enough. We have to be able to draw the parents in such that if the child is at risk, or appears to be, we can draw the family in and perhaps get at some of the underlying problems. It's also necessary, I feel, for this not to just happen within the school, but rather that the school.... If we had an ideal Kids At Risk initiative, it would have an outreach component such that you would have community health professionals working out of the school and mental health and social services reaching out to the home to provide the kind of advice and encouragement that the family home situation would require. We cannot deal with one in the absence of dealing with the other.
We will continue through the Kids At Risk initiative this year. As I said, we had about $.5 million in the budget formally as part of the Kids At Risk initiative last year. We will find the funds as required in this current year to make sure that we maintain that level of spending.
L. Stephens: Further to this discussion around accessing community services for children and families at risk through the schools, what is the objective of the pilot projects? What does the ministry want to achieve with this particular initiative? There must be a goal, a mandate or a specific outcome. I would like to know what that is, how long the pilot project is for, what kind of evaluation process will be completed at the end of it and whether or not that would be made public.
[3:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I do not pretend to have the detailed information of the very good proposals that came in. I will speak to this in general here, but I can provide you with as much detail as you may need. The call for proposals that went out, the proposals that came in, the selections of those and the funding in the system has at this point in time ended with the pilots up and running. Broadly speaking, though, it is to determine what's possible. What would the impediments be to going in this direction? What are the interministerial problems that may result? Are there implications for other ministries with respect to having staff in schools? There are lines-of-authority problems that have to be worked out. There are jurisdictional problems that have to be worked out. There is the determination, when you try to put it in place, as to where you should put it. I would like to see it right in the core of the school, but that may not be practicable at all times. There may be capital costs involved. There may be equipment and furniture costs involved. We have to explore the full range of problems.
I trust that through these 12 pilots that are underway, trying to deliver an integrated one-window program for children at risk and their families.... We want to make sure that it is doable. If it is doable, I believe we will be able to make that determination from the results of the pilots. Then I will go back to my colleagues in Treasury Board and cabinet to argue as loud and long as I have to in order to get some ongoing support to roll it out in a very real way, as opposed to just these pilots.
L. Stephens: What groups are involved in this initiative? What organizations are involved with the program?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you are looking for specific names and specific organizations, we can provide you with lists of various organizations that may be involved in various pilots. Generally speaking, from the government side, it is, of course: Education; Social Services; Attorney General; Health; Housing; Skills, Training and Labour; and Aboriginal Affairs plays a role. I think that's it from the government side -- oh, and Women's Equality, as well, with respect to child care aspects.
On the community side, there are a variety of service providers -- social and community activists organizations -- each of them either involved in or concerned with kids at risk. They are involved through the committee structure, which I mentioned to you, that each school must have. Each site must have a committee that brings together the community and the various actors from the ministry. Again, if you require a specific list of groups among health groups, welfare groups, police enforcement groups and other community living groups, I can provide that to you.
L. Stephens: It's not necessary, but it would be helpful. I just want to have a broad understanding of which community groups would be involved and what areas they would represent. It would almost be a mirror of government departments, but I would like that information if it is available.
Aboriginal language and the culture initiative have increased in importance and relevancy to public education and to the changes in education in British Columbia as a result of aboriginal self-government. I wonder if the minister could talk about what changes will be taking place over this next year, reflected in his estimates, around aboriginal education issues and the self-government area, and whether or not plans are in place to move what is now in the provincial public education purview into bands or some other vehicle to deliver aboriginal education and cultural issues. I know that there are a number of bands that have withdrawn from the public system, and I'd like to know what the minister's plans are around aboriginal education.
[ Page 13724 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member will recall, last year we established three targeted areas of funding: a cap on admin spending, a floor on special needs funding and a floor on aboriginal funding. These are so-called targeted funds.
In the instance of aboriginal funding, last year it was about $27 million and this year around $30 million will be provided by the province to school boards based on counts provided of aboriginal children. Those funds can be used in aboriginal language and culture programs or aboriginal support services programs.
I also made it mandatory for the boards to consult with bands. In some instances, local education agreements are in place which address many of the concerns. In other instances, there was already good communication between bands and boards. But in some instances there was little or no communication and a great deal of frustration on the side of aboriginal nations. I attached to the targeted funds a requirement that they could only be spent in consultation with the informed support of the aboriginal bands in a district.
I'm pleased to say that this initiative has worked. We have more consultation now between aboriginal education councils and aboriginal band councils and boards than we have ever had. We have much more involvement. We have some creativity coming out of that with respect to what we can do in the system in order to keep the enrolment rates among aboriginal children at a higher level. I believe it has put in place a system, if you will, which will ensure far higher participation of aboriginal people in the system.
The area will no doubt be covered, as well, in the government-to-government treaty processes. Indeed, we would encourage bands, to a maximum degree possible, to become fully involved in the education of aboriginal children.
L. Stephens: I know that education is a major component of the treaty negotiations and that bands in British Columbia are committed to taking back -- perhaps not the correct terminology, but it's pretty close, I think -- the responsibility for their education and traditions and cultures.
Is your ministry involved in a process with the view to divesting itself of a large part of aboriginal education in this province? Is you ministry involved with the federal level and Aboriginal Affairs in putting in place the ability to transfer out of the Ministry of Education a significant portion, or all, of the aboriginal education in this province?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member knows, the federal government is responsible for education dollars with respect to status aboriginals. That's approximately one-third of the total number of aboriginal students within the province. The government, through the treaty process, is discussing and consulting with aboriginal bands about the matter of governance. This will occur over the next couple of years, but there are no predetermined outcomes. There is no specific model of governance being put forward, but open negotiations and consultations, where the bands, no doubt, will do their best to come up with a governance system that they feel will be suitable for their needs and will end in a higher percentage of aboriginal children staying in the system and graduating from the system.... Independent of what the province is doing with respect to that, those bands who continue to operate independent schools on reserves funded by the federal government will continue to establish their own policies and their own curricula, whichever they wish.
On the provincial side, we are also developing -- you will note in the learning resources that were provided to opposition parties yesterday -- a first nations grade 12 curriculum as well in order to reach out and try to get more involvement of aboriginal people and aboriginal youth.
L. Stephens: Around the issue of band-operated elementary and secondary schools, could the minister talk a little bit about some of the provincial regulations, what kind of monitoring is there, whether or not there is a high level of cooperation with local school boards and whether or not the bands have access to input into the local school boards?
[3:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can give you some rough numbers that might be of some assistance to you. There are 103 band schools and just under 5,000 students at those schools; they cover K to 12. We do not provide any funding whatsoever for those schools. That is a federal government responsibility -- all funds that come to them.
There are 14 independent aboriginal schools. As independent schools, they have applied for and received some portion of funding from the province. The vast majority of band schools are operated by aboriginal nations and funded by the federal government. They may consult, and some of them do, with local boards. Sometimes local boards contract to provide certain services, but they are in fact completely independent of the provincial system. They do not need to comply with the provincial curriculum and, as I've said, receive no provincial funding.
L. Stephens: A few questions around school governance and whether or not the minister.... This is from For the Love of Learning, the Ontario royal commission report that talks about local boards of education providing incentives to large middle and secondary schools to create smaller learning units, or schools within a school -- "houses" is another word used. I visited Washington State a couple of years ago, where they have a number of these schools in the Edmonds School District, and it seems to be working well for them. I wondered if the minister has any thoughts around those kinds of initiatives here in British Columbia, and whether or not he would support and welcome some new innovative ways of delivering educational opportunities to students.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When you get into middle schools of a thousand or more students and into senior secondary or secondary schools of up to 2,000 students, you certainly do develop some difficulties in maintaining a coherence among a student body and staff that large. Indeed, some schools do try then to organize into subunits or houses. I think it is generally a sound idea, but there's a proviso with respect to the capital investment. If we can accommodate within the kind of acceptable per-square-metre allocation, and if we can then provide sufficient funds to allow a school to actually physically build itself in such a way that they can have two or three houses attached to a central admin and laboratory areas, a central services area, that would be great. I think it would give the young men and women -- and indications are that that's what happens -- a greater sense of identification with that particular house, and that can contribute to some house spirit and to school spirit. So I am certainly in favour of any district that wishes to explore that kind of opportunity, but I must keep the cost of it in mind.
[ Page 13725 ]
L. Stephens: There could be issues around cost, unless the structure already there lends itself to a reorganization. But a lot of these schools do have a number of students -- the thousand students in one structure is very large. I do think that smaller schools or smaller configurations would lend themselves to being more cohesive units. With the schools that we have today, I don't think there's any reason why that couldn't happen within the school itself. There are many ways to make area distinctions within a building so that there need not be separate, freestanding units with a common core. So I think there are ways that it can be done, and I would encourage the minister to look at that.
The level of violence in the schools is perhaps one of the reasons.... You have all these kids all at the same time crowding and pushing and shoving and bumping one another. It just seems that if we can come up with many creative ways to try to address all these individual problems, the better we would be.
One other area that I would like to ask the minister about is around instructors who are not certified teachers, and whether or not he is moving in this direction and if this is reflected in the estimates. Again, if we look at the junior secondary and the secondary level, in my view, it is desirable to bring into the schools individuals or professionals who have expertise in a particular area, but who are not certified teachers. And would the minister support programs, such as Junior Achievement, which are different? It is a program that brings into the schools a different perspective than what is taught at the schools. I am thinking specifically of, perhaps, an individual who has some technical expertise, who is not a teacher, but who is able to teach a technical program or a component of a technical program to students Would that be something the minister would be looking at? Would that be desirable. It could be around health, recreation, social work, or members of the community -- any of those kinds of areas. Does he feels that that might be a good idea -- to amend the act to allow instructors who are not certified teachers to instruct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Teachers and their organizations have fought a long, long, difficult fight to raise their area from having no particular qualifications beyond perhaps high school, to having become a full-fledged profession requiring certification and having a college of teachers to maintain those standards. I would not want to do anything that reverses or overturns that.
Having said that, I believe there is room in our system for teachers who perhaps come from a different background. I have spoken of this in public on many occasions. At the present time, every one of our schools and every one of our classrooms models academic success, because the individual whom all of those young men and women and children love and admire is someone who typically has gone through and obtained a university degree and then gone on for a further one or two years for their educational qualifications. Hence, we are constantly modelling the academic road to success.
I have asked the College of Teachers of B.C. to contemplate the possibility of having individuals who have excelled in another area -- it may be in a vocation, it may be in a trade, it may be in some other area where they have attained the highest level of expertise possible in that area. I would like to see those individual receiving additional training in pedagogy, such that when they stand in front of a class they know things about teaching, schools and students -- they understand how it works, and they've gone through a kind of filter process to make sure we have the right kind of people. But I don't want them turned into academics. That is my suggestion to the College of Teachers.
They have taken my suggestion to them under consideration and are working on what they could do in this area, and I anticipate that they will be reporting to me on their deliberations in the not-distant future.
L. Stephens: I wonder if perhaps the minister would consider pilot projects in that area? Might that be something that could be looked at around the applied academics side of the curriculum that is now coming to the fore? Would he be supportive of pilot projects around that initiative?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have turned to my esteemed staff for advice, and lo, they have provided it.
What I was fishing for in my mind was that we have a process going on right now, which UBC is bringing forward, in the area of chef training. There is a standard that a chef can attain called the Red Seal, which is an extremely high, perhaps the highest, level of certification that a chef can attain. The idea is that someone who has qualified that way as a chef would then take essentially one year of pedagogy and receive, initially, a temporary certificate that can be renewed. Then, in front of the class, we have someone modelling success who arrived there along a non-academic path, who attained a pinnacle in their own profession and who is going to assist in the education of young people wishing to pursue chef training and cook training. That is one area of tremendous employment growth in the province; there is a lot of demand in that area.
Let's utilize this as an example of the non-traditional teacher and non-academic success. Let's have up-to-date teaching kitchens and up-to-date equipment wherever we can have them. We should, perhaps, tie this in with services to either the community or the student body, and tie it into hot-lunch programs and cafeteria programs.
We can bring a whole variety of things together here. Again, one of the central ideas is to bring in other people who have a great deal to offer the system, students and their families. While we're doing that, however, let's make sure they have at least the minimum level of pedagogical skills that warrants at least a temporary certificate.
[4:00]
L. Stephens: I have a couple of questions. Would these individuals be exempt from membership in the BCTF? Would visiting instructors not holding a B.C. certificate be allowed? Would the BCTF be agreeable? Would the ministry mandate that individuals such as these are exempt from BCTF membership?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No. All such individuals would have to be members of the College of Teachers, duly certified -- a temporary certificate, perhaps from the College of Teachers -- and then members of the BCTF.
L. Stephens: Is there any appetite in the Ministry of Education to amend the School Act to allow for a separate professional organization for teachers -- much as the ones
[ Page 13726 ]
doctors and lawyers enjoy -- focussed primarily around professional development, teacher training and those kinds of things, without mandatory membership in the BCTF? Is there any consideration of those kinds of amendments?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In fact, B.C. is in the lead in having such an organization: the College of Teachers. All teachers must belong to the College of Teachers. In addition, the administrators -- the principals and vice-principals -- must belong to the College of Teachers. That is their professional organization. There are other provinces who have inquired of late as to the success of that model in British Columbia. I have reported back to them in various conversations and interchanges that we think it's a good idea. I expect that some others will follow, perhaps including Ontario.
L. Fox: I think that last answer was almost predictable, and, in fact.... However, I'll leave that.
I want to talk a bit about a number of issues. I want to first talk about this pedagogy -- if I've pronounced that correctly -- program.
In my experience, while it may have a new name, it's really not a new item. We saw, over the course of years, particularly in rural British Columbia, where we took trades people, gave them some basic training and, with letters of permission, allowed them to enter into the teaching force on an entry basis to fill vacancies in home economics, industrial arts, mechanical courses and so on. Through that, many of them were able to upgrade themselves through universities and become qualified.
The other side of the coin -- and this is something that makes me a little bit concerned -- is that those who were not able to upgrade, whether it was due to resources, family problems, geographical locations or whatever, eventually lost their positions to others who became qualified teachers. They were bumped by the fact that letters of permission were not recognized by the BCTF if there was a qualified teacher available.
I would suggest that, in many areas of the province, there would be some concern about whether or not that same practice wouldn't take place here: if a chef, for instance, graduated as a teacher and also was a qualified chef, would that individual be able to displace the individual in this program? The minister might want to comment on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The letter of permission that the member has made reference to is a temporary certificate. Indeed, as the member has suggested, ....
I'll phrase this another way, because I'm not certain that we're on the same wavelength. It's a matter controlled by the College of Teachers of B.C. as to whether or not the temporary certificate will be renewed. If a board says, "Yes, we need this person, we need this temporary certificate or this letter of permission to be renewed," then the college would likely do that.
But if other qualified teachers with permanent certificates are available within the district, and hence the district does not need to write to the College of Teachers in order to get an extension to a letter of permission, then, indeed, that individual would lose their temporary certificate and would be displaced in the classroom.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
L. Fox: I guess that leads me to the question.... My experience has been that I've seen individuals of.... The minister talked earlier about role models for the school body and role models for the class in terms of these particular individuals.
I have seen such role models lose their opportunity by a letter of permission being refused because there were unemployed teachers elsewhere in the province, and the teaching certificate was given preference over the specific quality and perhaps the discipline that that individual had. In fact, I saw an incident where a drafting instructor -- a local individual who got into the system through this program -- was displaced by somebody with a teaching certificate who didn't have any drafting expertise. So I'm asking if those kinds of values would continue in this new program, or would the emphasis be placed on the drafting part, rather than on the teaching certificate?.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I guess I would say that in the long run the solution is to have teachers sufficiently qualified in the various areas we're speaking of -- be it chef training, cook training, heavy duty mechanics, power mechanics, drafting -- and allow them to raise their qualification level so they can obtain a certificate and then be able to model the non-academic success. Perhaps arguments can be made that they would be the most suitable, the best equipped, to teach that course in drafting, or that course in power mechanics, or what have you. I'm prepared to take the suggestion of the member, add it to some other suggestions that I've made to the college teachers, take it up with them and see whether or not they would be open to such an idea.
L. Fox: I guess one practical question I have to ask is whether or not all this would be made available in the system to help these people upgrade their skills. As the minister will be aware, the pay scale they're on, because essentially they're on a letter of permission.... At least the way it was in the past, they were on the lowest possible pay within the pay scale. Many times, in the rural areas of the province, you may have individuals who have quite a demand on themselves, perhaps in raising a family. One of the limitations is the cost of getting away, on that kind of pay scale, to upgrade themselves to achieve this teaching certificate.
I understand the intent, and I'm pleased at the minister's response to the last question, but perhaps you might want to respond to that part of it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Various teaching institutions, of course, offer upgrading courses and summer courses in order to allow teachers to acquire the additional qualifications they need.
The issue of whether a teacher with a temporary certificate moves up through the pay scale at all is a matter that should now be addressed through provincial bargaining, or the employee association -- the BCTF -- should take that up to see whether or not there's some justice in your comment.
With respect to any additional help made available to teachers with temporary certificates, any additional courses made available for them.... I guess I can go about as far as I
[ Page 13727 ]
have in my comments, but it's an issue that the hon. member may wish to take up in the estimates of Skills, Training and Labour.
L. Fox: Just one short clarification. I wasn't suggesting that they should move up in pay scale; I was making the observation that typically -- at least historically -- those teachers on a letter of permission were in the old EA scale, which was in most school board pay scales. I don't think it even exists any more in many of them. There may still be the odd letter of permission floating around out there, but if there is, I'm unaware of it.
So I'm sure that that category is probably gone. But my observation was that perhaps, if it was a family individual, they may not have.... It's in the rural areas such as Fort Nelson where you'll probably have the most difficulty achieving individuals with a teaching certificate in these particular categories. In any case, that's what I was trying to point out, and I'll leave it at that.
I wanted to get back to the aboriginal funding. It was a surprise to me that we had 11 independent aboriginal schools funded under the provincial.... At least, a portion is funded under the education act as a private school. Could the minister tell me what category they fall in, and whether or not any of these are Catholic schools? Or are these totally independent aboriginal off-reserve schools?
[4:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The 14 independent aboriginal schools have met the test as independent schools, group two, which means that there is funding available for students attending that school who are not status, on-reserve aboriginal students. In the 14 schools, there is a total of about 124 such students.
At one that I visited up at Kispiox, there are instances of non-aboriginal students living further up the valley whose parents were choosing to have their children attend the school at Kispiox rather than to go quite some distance further. They would qualify as attendees at an independent school, and then the province partially funds those students. There are some 124, and the total provincial funding to those 14 schools was $379,000.
L. Fox: Just a little further clarification. Group two is a 50-percent-funded school, as I recall. Is the minister aware of where the native parent comes up with the other 50 percent? Is it a DIA grant to non-status natives?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just to correct a minor point, group two is 35 percent funding. As for the additional funds required for the child, the school will be charging a tuition presumably; where the tuition is obtained from, we don't know.
L. Fox: I know there's a certain amount of auditing carried out on ordinary independent schools to verify the percentage that they're asking. Is there any such auditing carried out on these 14 schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Inspections -- and audits, if necessary -- occur through the independent school branch of the ministry.
L. Fox: One final question, and this is to do with schools that are DIA-funded. In many cases there are non-status natives going to status aboriginal schools located on reserves. In many cases, the school is closest to an adjacent community, or almost within an adjacent community, where there are non-status natives living. Do we as a province then pay a premium to have the non-status natives attend a status school?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are instances where individual districts contract with bands to provide an educational service for an off-reserve child. If the off-reserve child is an aboriginal off-reserve child, it is treated in the same category as a non-aboriginal off-reserve child.
L. Fox: I don't think the minister understood. I'm aware of ones where the school district contracts to carry out the function and operate the school, but there are schools out there where the local school board is only a bit of an advisory to the aboriginal school and doesn't have any real contract with it. There are non-status Indian children attending status schools. Is the minister telling me that the school district, then, is counting those children in its student count, taking part of that revenue and paying the DIA school for the education?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes. There are instances where the district counts the child and then contracts with a band school to deliver the education program to the child; it would pay over to the band school the funds attached, if you will, to that child.
L. Fox: I would like to touch a bit on the issue of the school district structure. There's been some discussion, I think, in all parties in British Columbia about downsizing the number of school districts.
First, in a number of comparisons, some individuals have used Alberta as a model of how they downsized a substantial number. I think we all know that was done in British Columbia a number of years ago -- prior to 1974 or 1975, I believe -- where we cut down the number of school districts to 75. It is my understanding that the minister was looking at that. Perhaps he could update us as to what his ministry's policy is with respect to reducing the number of school districts.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I was contemplating a task force which would go out to look at the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, including in their mandate the boundaries of districts. I have decided to take that off the agenda for the time being because of the extremely heavy implementation agenda that boards are going to be wrestling with this fall. I felt that the total pressure on the system of the very major changes that are rolling out made that a higher priority item, and hence I stopped the process that would have led to the task force.
L. Fox: Has the minister, over the course of looking at this -- certainly without getting into it in any great detail -- looked at any alternate management style in terms of how we might shift responsibilities from the school district onto the school administration, or what models might have to be in place in order to even reduce the number of school districts? Was any of this kind of stuff explored at all, or are we yet to get to that stage?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, none of the items that you suggested were explicitly discussed or looked into, nor was
[ Page 13728 ]
any work commenced on them. However, in my discussions with boards all over the province, both individually and in groups, I have suggested that they all must look to their own structures to see what streamlining they could do. Also, groups of boards should be working with each other very actively to determine what sorts of consortia can be set up to handle various aspects of administration, sharing certain costs. I recall one board member saying to me: "Well, what about the possibilities of us sharing a superintendent with an adjacent board?" I said: "By all means, explore those things." We want to find what savings we can in the system to the absolutely maximum degree possible.
L. Fox: I'm aware of some of those initiatives. In fact, believe it or not, through today's technology, School District 56 shares a treasurer that's working for the Sunshine Coast. Here you have two districts at opposite ends of the province sharing the same treasurer. This is, in my view, very innovative and a process we should support. Perhaps they've learned through their electronic busing that they can talk to anyone anywhere in the province and get immediate response and direction. I'll leave it at that.
I want to talk a little bit about the capital funding process, because it has changed quite substantially over the course of the last several years. As I understand it, we used to have seven bases for approval, and now there are basically 21 steps to approve a capital project. That is one issue that I understand is a concern.
Another concern is how we set the priorities for deciding what region or district or school is indeed required. Sometimes there seems to be a lack of rationale, at least in my mind, as to why we would build a school, for instance, in a school district or community with declining enrolment. There may be some reasons for it, but at least on the surface one would question that. On the other side of the coin, we have a district like Richmond that has 23,000 students, with 5,500 of them in portables. I have a tough time rationalizing how the priorities are set for the funding of new schools.
So perhaps I could begin.... I know that this government ran on a platform that it was going to reduce the number of portables in the province. Perhaps the minister can give me an example of how successful they have been in doing that if he has the number of portables that we presently have in the province versus what was in the province.... I will even give him some leeway and say from the budget of 1992, which gave him six months to spend the last government's credit. Where have we gone from March '92 to March '95 in terms of the number of portables in the province?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm going to have to get staff to provide me with some hard, accurate numbers, so I can answer your question.
Generally, we had a bit of a funding drought for capital in the mid-eighties -- and this, of course, would not be an argument with the member opposite, because he no longer belongs to that party. As a result, we had literally an explosion of the number of portables throughout the province, particularly in the rapidly growing suburbs of Vancouver. That was compounded by tremendous enrolment growths over the last four years, ranging up to as many as 14,000 additional students per year.
Even though we have put record amounts into capital investment -- some $1.4 billion over the first three budgets -- we are not making the progress that I would like to see with respect to getting at the portable problem. We have certainly made some progress in several districts. You mentioned Richmond as the district that right now has the highest percentage of students in portables, and you are correct.
[4:30]
It was not a case, however, of priorities that led to this situation; it is a combination of factors. There are no guilty parties involved in this. Richmond has a tremendous challenge in the rate of growth that they have. They also have a tremendous challenge in assembling land for schools, particularly for secondary schools where a relatively large site of 14 or 15 acres is required. They have had quite good cooperation from the municipal government in trying to come up with joint sites. In fact, one of the first things I did as Minister of Education was sign off on an extremely complex land deal that must have involved 14 or 15 components. The Richmond School Board's facilities people had worked very diligently with the municipal people in putting together this very, very complex land organization. But there has been a lack of success in getting suitable sites available. Two years from now, by September 1996, we will have more spaces in elementary schools than the enrolment -- a tremendous catch-up this September and next September.
In secondary schools, however, there is still this substantial lag between enrolment and capacity in schools. The district has been successful of late in assembling -- I believe the final touches have been put on it -- another site. In fact, had they had a site available last November when I had an additional funding allocation, Richmond, in all likelihood, would have received funding for at least one high school. But they did not have a site available, and planning had not been done.
They are now making progress both on sites and on planning. We did fund one planning project in November that they have been proceeding on. I've been made fully aware of the difficulties in that district, and they will be treated fairly when I am able to finalize my capital plan for this budget year.
With respect to your specific question about the number of portables, I will obtain the information for you and provide it.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
L. Fox: One very quick observation. The minister made reference to a funding drought in the mid-eighties. Well, I'm not here to defend any particular government, but I did go back and do some research. There was one year in the last ten that we dropped below the rest of the provinces in Canada. All the other years we spent above them on capital construction in school districts in the statistics I found. Maybe the minister has some other statistics that show something different, but certainly in its own information from the Ministry of Education, that was what I found.
I want to get back to the process, because I believe it's important that we depoliticize public spending. It appears to me that the priorities in this government are not too different from anything we've seen in the past, where the school is built where it hopes that it can get the most votes. I want to ask the minister: how many new schools in the last three years have been approved in school districts that have had declining or stagnant enrolments?
[ Page 13729 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can't provide for you offhand the specific numbers, but what I can do again is give you an overview and provide the facts to back that up.
In the mid-eighties capital investment in British Columbia one year dropped to as low as $25 million for the entire province. Over a five-year period it averaged just over $50 million for the entire province -- an average such that over a five-year period about $250 million was invested into schools.
In our first three budgets, $1.4 billion was invested in schools compared to $250 million over five years under the previous administration.
L. Fox: What was the student growth?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The overall enrolment growth through the province was quite flat, but in districts where there was rapidly increasing enrolment, the investments weren't made. And in other districts where the enrolment might have been flat, it was the perfect time for a government to invest in the renewal of schools. As a business person, I'm sure you would agree with a general assessment that says that if the economic life of your structure is 50 years and you have hundreds of such structures, you should look at investing roughly 2 percent per year into renewal. That only makes sense with about a 50-year life span. We should have been investing through the mid-eighties in somewhere around 20 to 30 new schools a year to replace worn-out, falling-down schools.
In addition to that, we should have been investing rehabilitation funds, major reno funds, into dozens and dozens of other old schools. It was the perfect time to do it. But the government of the time chose to simply turn off the tap, and all that did was build up enormous pressure that is breaking loose now.
It is unfair to put every dollar of capital into just those districts with growing enrolments. We do have schools where the enrolment is flat or even declining, but we have schools that are, from a parental point of view, inadequate. They cannot meet seismic standards, for example. There are three-storey wooden schools where parents worry about the safety of their children and where the core of the school, as in one in Fernie that I went through in detail, is over 100 years old. There was a whole variety of patchwork additions to it over the following 100 years. It makes it almost impossible do technology upgrades in those schools. When they tear down a partition or knock through a wall, they have no idea what they are going to see on the other side of the wall. So it is not fair, just because they have no enrolment growth, to ignore those communities' real concerns about the physical quality of their schools.
What I did in last year's budget was devote two-thirds to three-quarters -- I can't remember the exact number -- to meeting enrolment pressure. I had one priority list for enrolment pressure. Funds were then divided on the basis of the priorities determined by factors such as overcrowding, availability of land, number of portables and the percent, if you will, of overcrowding of the core school. What came out of the computer model, with respect to the prioritization, received the highest consideration in coming up with the list. I had a second list that was replacement and major renovation. About a third of the funds went to that list, and that too, was distributed through the province equitably with respect to need.
If you go back, as at least one columnist did, and do an analysis of where the education capital went versus the distribution of seats and the distribution of population, you will see that it was scrupulously fair -- as was the additional funding that I put out in November. If you go back and look at where those capital funds went, you will again see that they were distributed scrupulously fairly into government ridings and opposition ridings of pretty well all stripes.
L. Fox: Well, I will. I didn't bring the stats I had with me, so I can't leaf through them. I certainly will do it, because my information is somewhat different than what the minister tells me. I'll take him at his word. Either his published information was incorrect or I misinterpreted it. I'll certainly find that out.
The minister alluded earlier to the fact that if Richmond had been ready -- I think he said in November of last year -- there was an extra sum of money that was either not spent or unallocated -- I'm not sure what it was.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: New.
L. Fox: New money? Was that the money that went to the Delta riding?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There were projects that went into quite a number of ridings. Some of it went into Surrey-Cloverdale; some of it went into Coquitlam. Some of the planning money went into Richmond. I believe some went into Delta South. Some planning money was for the school outside Prince George, Nukko Lake, that burned down.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Well, it was a school that on an emergent basis needed to have some substantial work done on it due to the infamous bat problem. That was included.
Again, hon. member, I can provide you with the specific list of the projects that were approved in the additional allocation that K to 12 received for capital in November. I'll be pleased to do so.
L. Fox: I'm sure this is going to go on for some time, and I know there are other members who want to get in here. I've had the floor for some time, so at this time I'll give up the floor. Perhaps tomorrow I will start on this other curriculum.
L. Stephens: We want to continue with funding. We're on the home stretch, if you will, but I doubt if it will be before 5:30 p.m.
Anyway, I wonder if the minister could talk about this budget's allocations under the ministry's new funding allocation system, which is now in effect. Under the old system, there was designated instructional. Under this new system, they get a lump sum, and the boards are able to disburse it as they see fit. Could the minister talk about the allocation of funds in this budget, and whether he feels that the percentage increase, which is the equivalent of $45 a student, is adequate for the cost-of-living increases, the increased teachers' contracts, the freedom of information costs and all the other costs in the system?
[4:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The year-to-year increase in the block of about 3.3 percent is adequate, I believe, for this year.
[ Page 13730 ]
Any increases in educator salary costs due to the grid that is in place and the normal kinds of increments that occur were allowed for. Any settlements that occurred among non-support staff have been allowed for. An inflationary allowance was made for the non-salary items.
In addition to that, we have some other enhancements -- the 10.7, for example, in technology. If the question is, "Is it enough?" -- well, of course, if you talk to boards.... I will say at the outset that generally there have been very, very few complaints. In fact, most boards that have contacted me have indicated that they are satisfied with their allocation. Quite a number have said that they actually ended up getting a bit more than they anticipated. Generally speaking, I'm sure all trustees would feel that they could have used more.
If we are going to bring the deficit under control, eliminate it entirely and put a surplus in the bank, as we did, then tough decisions have to be made. Year to year, this ministry has received the largest increase of any of the large ministries, because we as government have put a high value on education. I believe that any of the extraordinary costs that districts are facing have been met. In addition to that, we have been able to provide some enhancements.
L. Stephens: There was an $8.1 million special purpose grant this year to allow districts to make the transition from the old funding formula to the new one. I know the minister did say that he would allow extra funding so that none of the districts would be penalized by this transition. I'm sure the minister is talking about this special purpose grant that will not be there next year.
The minister also talked about debt. The debt services in the capital program have increased around 17 percent from about $277.2 million to about $326.1 million -- actually, it's a little closer to 18 percent. I'd like the minister to talk about these debt-servicing costs and what kind of debt management plan is in the ministry to resolve this particular and quite substantial increase in debt servicing.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Of course, if you're going to build schools, you're going to increase your debt servicing. As a result of rolling out schools -- last year, at the end of the day I believe we expended in the order of $440 million or $450 million in schools. All of the debt associated with those projects gets added into the debt plan. Then the servicing for that additional debt comes out in the debt-servicing component of the ministry. So the increase in debt servicing is simply a reflection of the very vigorous school construction program we've had in order to meet the enormous enrolment surge and to attempt to get on top of the portable problem, retire some of those portables to the degree possible and get on with the replacement of some schools and the major renovations and additions to others.
L. Stephens: The second part of my question is: what is the ministry doing to come up with a debt reduction plan to eliminate these debt-servicing costs? Does the minister in fact agree with the Premier when he said yesterday -- this is in today's Vancouver Sun -- that private investment is being considered in such areas as transit and sewage treatment of schools and hospitals? Will the minister look at joint partnerships with industry to fund schools and their construction?
The Premier went on to say that some projects will be announced in the next two months. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not in fact there is any provision in these estimates to look at forming some partnerships with industry to build schools in this province.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount under debt servicing, as I said before, is the amount that must be paid into sinking funds in order to pay off the bond debt associated with new school construction. Typically the payback period is in the 25-year range, or something like that. Hence the debt servicing that we see this year will continue next year and would be added to by whatever new construction that we bring on, less whatever old bonds are paid off. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment to do the detail work of the overall government debt management plan, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance. Whatever servicing of debt is occurring within the K-to-12 sector is taken along with the debt servicing of all the other sectors of government and is managed by both of us. The debt plan the Finance minister spoke about in her budget speech is that debt plan.
The member should recognize the consequences if her party wants to see the portables problem and the seismic risk problems solved. If it also wants to see the health and safety issues related to lead in pipes or asbestos in ceilings and the issues regarding accessibility to schools addressed and dealt with, then she is suggesting we need to make more capital investment. In turn, she is saying that we need to adjust our debt plan accordingly and be willing to accept more debt.
L. Stephens: For the minister's correction, I was saying nothing of the sort. What I was saying is that this government talks about a debt reduction plan when, in fact, there is no such animal, and that the Ministry of Education, which should be committed to providing adequate and appropriate schools and classrooms for the children in this province, and to doing its part in eliminating the portables situation we have, should be looking at creative ways to provide these kinds of buildings.
Your Premier said in the Sun today that he was looking at private investment. I would like to know if the minister agrees that private investment, in a partners arrangement, is appropriate in developing new schools, renovating old schools and eliminating portables.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have been a proponent of private-public partnerships from the time I was Minister of Transportation, where I introduced to cabinet the notion of private partners in transportation infrastructure.
I'm open to innovative concepts, but as I pointed out yesterday in our discussions, and as the Premier has said, a task force is looking into this. Through that task force, we will certainly explore the possibilities of private partnerships and private investment into infrastructure, but I put out the caution yesterday that the auditor general has indicated that if it is a long-term occupancy lease, we have to capitalize that lease. Hence it becomes part of the debt of the province -- part of the debt repayment or debt management plan.
Contrary to what the member has said, there is a debt management plan. It is a real debt management plan involving a very long-sighted view of finances, because anything to do with capital requires that kind of decade-to-decade planning. One does not put a short-term debt management plan
[ Page 13731 ]
into place when one has all sorts of debts with 20- and 25-year terms to them, whether those are for schools, hospitals, courthouses or what have you.
L. Stephens: A debt management plan of 20 years to rectify the....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members of the committee, please. Continue, hon. member.
L. Stephens: A 20-year debt management plan to rectify spending of three years, a 66 percent increase, hasn't all been spent on education. I ask the minister: does he agree with public-private partnerships and with private investment money in building schools and renovations? Does he believe that is desirable in the Ministry of Education, and does he support the Premier's initiative on schools? I'm not talking about infrastructure; I'm talking about schools.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First of all, perhaps we have to have a definition of terms. In the sense of what we carry on in these buildings, schools are part of the infrastructure of communities. Colleges are part of the infrastructure of communities; hospitals are part of the infrastructure of communities, not just roads and pipelines and sewers. Education facilities are an integral part of the infrastructure of our society. I am most interested in seeing the outcome of the task force with respect to private investment in school facilities. If the outcome of that task force is that it makes economic sense to do so, I will be the first to embrace the principle, because that would allow us, for one thing, to build more schools, which is highly desirable.
[5:00]
On the debt that this government has added over the past three years, I would greatly enjoy hearing the member say which schools she would not have built or which college addition she would not have built or which hospital she would not have built or which courthouse she would not have built, in order that I could get a better sense of where she's going.
L. Stephens: The minister asked which schools, which hospitals and which facilities would not have been built. The question is whether or not this government has made appropriate choices, and where the schools and hospitals are. I would suggest to you: to friends and insiders, lucrative contracts, the fair wage policy, and on and on the list goes. So when we talk about spending, the issue is appropriate spending, and whether or not friends and insiders is appropriate spending.
As the minister knows, the new capital spending process that revolves around cash flow has caused considerable problems in the districts over their capital funding projects. I wonder if the minister could just talk a bit about the cash flow changes and whether or not those districts that have been quite anxious will in fact be able to have some kind of surety and some kind of ability to plan. Right now, all of them are feeling that they are lacking the ability to do any long-term planning. I'd like to know if the ministry has looked at making some changes to their capital funding program, as well as their operating grants.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We are in the process of changing the management of the capital projects. Up to a couple of years back, we used what was called a capital envelope method, where the ministry at the beginning of the capital year announced essentially which projects would be funded.
Some boards, usually through no fault of their own, would then find that they would be unable to proceed with a certain project. It would be held up in the community consultation phase or held up in the planning phase or held up due to site conditions. The money, in the meantime, was committed and tied up. We have had instances where very significant funds -- we are speaking in terms of aggregate $100 million -- were tied up over a period of many budget cycles, because they were allocated via the capital envelope system.
So we are changing -- we commenced it last year, and we will be on it rather rigidly this year -- to a cash-flow envelope system. Then we will advise each district as to what kinds of cash flows we anticipate they will have, and we will have them manage their projects within the cash flow-envelope that we give them. It will then be up to the ministry to gather in from all districts, wherever a capital project is underway -- minor or major -- all of the cash-flow data and have that fit within the cash-flow allocation that the ministry as a whole has. That's a big change.
No doubt some boards and their facilities people are feeling some additional stress, because we are bringing a great deal of discipline, if you will, to all of us -- not just to the facility staff of boards, but to the facility staff of government. We want to know that when we make a borrowing commitment and we tie up some of our borrowing ability, that is utilized in as efficient and effective a way as possible. Hence the whole concept of the cash-flow envelope system. Boards, I am sure, will get on top of this. Their facilities people will come to understand and be able to work within that system as well, or better, as they do within the capital envelope system.
I have a couple of stats that the hon. member may be fascinated by, so I thought I would bring them to her attention, and those are with respect to the cost of construction. Occasionally one hears of things that sully the calm waters of truth, and we should correct those things whenever possible.
In 1991-92, the unit cost for elementary schools was $1,150 per square metre. In 1995-96, four years later, the unit cost for elementary schools is $1,150 -- the identical number. In secondary systems it was $1,200 per square metre back in 1991-92; it is now $1,240. That's roughly a 3 percent increase in the capital cost allocation over four years. So you can see from those stats that the ministry takes the cost control of facilities very, very seriously. And to imply that through the introduction of fair wages, for example, we have seen an explosion of the cost of schools and hence a lot of misallocation, in particular to friends and insiders when I suspect that of the $1.4 billion worth of construction, probably nary a cent of it went to a construction company owned or operated by this government or by supporters of this government -- is, I think, inappropriate. The funds have been tightly controlled; the construction costs have been tightly controlled. The budgets and the expenditures of them now through the cash envelope system will be tightly controlled. We are delivering the maximum value to the children and families of British Columbia for the least possible cost.
L. Stephens: I want to bring to the minister's attention the Surrey district, which I know he visits from time to time,
[ Page 13732 ]
specifically around this cash flow method that is now used for capital projects and the increased enrolments for planning school year pupil transfers, new spaces required, rental of portables, and so on and so forth.
Mainly the salary and wage increases now consume, they say, 92 percent of the district's operating budget. So their project approvals for 1993-94 and the 1994-95 needs have been seriously impacted. Their request for 1993-94 was $153 million, and their approvals were $17.7 million. Their 1994-95 request was $119.477 million, and the approvals were $31.289 million. The numbers are quite dramatic.
I wonder if the minister could indicate what kind of relief these growing districts -- Surrey is one; Coquitlam is another; Richmond is another -- that have serious difficulties of over capacity.... In Surrey they have a 36 percent enrolment increase and 366 additional portables to raise the total to 648 portables in Surrey. Could the minister perhaps tell us what can be done to try to alleviate some of these serious difficulties in these growing districts?
I understand that the new funding system has caused some difficulties with a number of the districts that didn't realize they do have to follow the process, and if they don't, determinations won't be made for their districts. I would like to know if the minister has some words of comfort particularly for Surrey, Richmond and Coquitlam.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We've done a great deal with respect to meeting the capital needs of districts. Possibly we could have done an even better job, had the opposition not been relentlessly criticizing us for investing in schools and by relentlessly carping on debt.
You cannot, hon. member, have it both ways. You cannot ask us to get a hold of the enrolment pressure and the portable pressure and, at the same time, tell us that we can't increase debt. I indicated to you a few moments ago that we have contained the cost pressures on the unit cost side. I have indicated that we have expended the $1.4 billion. I have indicated that we have done it in a fair and equitable manner. I only wish that the member would stand in her place and say: "Yes, we agree with the $1.4 billion worth of schools that have been built," and "Yes, we agree, you should have spent even more. We need the funds for schools, and if we need to absorb some debt in order to do that, we ought to." But I expect that my beard will be white before I hear such comments from the opposition benches.
In Surrey, the number of portables is nothing like 600. The number of so-called funded portables in '94-95 was 232, and that is a decrease of 121 portables since 1991. Now, that's a fair amount of progress. That relates to expenditures in Surrey that range from $126 million in 1991 to $76 million in '92-93, dropping to $23 million in '93-94 -- keep in mind that that was $23 million in one district. The previous administration, one time, spent $23 million in 75 districts -- increasing to $47 million in the fiscal year just completed. The total in Surrey, over the last three years, is $147 million invested into schools.
Over that same period of time, Coquitlam has had $165 million. Richmond has had investments over that period of about $60 million, but over the period 1989 to '94, it was $141 million.
If you look at other parts of the province: Sunshine Coast, $12 million; Howe Sound, $47 million; Central Okanagan, $77 million; Vernon, $23 million. I can provide you with the complete list. You will see that school districts represented by political parties of every stripe have been supported fairly, as I said earlier. We have been making what progress we can on the portable issue in spite of incessant opposition demands that we not invest in schools.
[5:15]
C. Evans: I have only one question. I find this a scintillating dialogue: on the one hand the need to build because we grow and on the other hand the need to look after the debt because the people have to control their expenditures.
Minister, in the olden days the community used to just build the school because they wanted their kids to go to school. My simple question is: would it be in order to say that the minister would want to help any community go out and put in volunteer labour in order to get their school with the least possible public expenditure and the most possible assistance on the part of the local people?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There have been districts that have proposed to use some volunteer labour, particularly with respect to some site improvements or site preparation or perhaps some site work following. There are districts that use what they call "own labour" of staff members in order to contribute to construction of renovations, additions and some new projects. There are districts that are seeking to encourage, to the maximum degree possible, the utilization of local firms and local labour on the projects they have.
I encourage all of those things. I encourage as much community participation as possible and as much local business and labour participation as possible.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to turn the subject to Chilliwack for a moment. I'd like to talk a little bit about funding, too.
The Chilliwack School District had roughly 400 more students this past September than in the previous September; this is roughly 4 percent. Apparently you're telling the school districts that there will be a 3 percent increase in budget. We have a problem with these numbers, and the answer cannot be that it will be solved by doing more with less, although I agree that government in general must do this. If class size is to be maintained in a school district, how do you provide for 4 percent more students? A whole new elementary school with brand-new students, if you will.... How can a growing district provide for that kind of growth on a 3 percent budget lift?
By the way, the figures I'm using are last September's figures. There is similar growth forecast for next year. Can you give us some advice on how we're going to react to this growth rate with these increases in the budget?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I'm pleased to remind the member of the efforts this government has made on the capital side to respect the rapidly growing district of Chilliwack. Over the 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 estimates, a total of just under $62 million went into the construction of facilities in Chilliwack. I have visited a number of those new facilities, and I know that the community is delighted with them. I think it is one more indication that the funding this government has provided has been on the basis of equity of opportunity for students around the province without regard to political affiliation.
[ Page 13733 ]
In the current funding year, you're correct: the enrolment increase in Chilliwack has been projected at 3 percent, while the block funding increment is just under 3 percent, or 2.8 percent. It is reported to me that they may have reported to us an error in their local transportation costs. If that is so, and they report correct information, it could be that the 2.8 percent will bump back up.
But over the last five years, enrolment has increased 22.7 percent and funding has increased 33.6 percent, so we have been able to keep up with the wage pressure at all levels and the inflationary pressure on non-wage items.
R. Chisholm: I suggest, hon. minister, that the school district and yourself get together on the percentages, because these percentages, including the 4 percent, were quoted to me by Dr. Lees just an hour ago. So somewhere along the line there is a discrepancy, and we're talking about students and the availability of resources to supply them.
I have to agree with the minister that our district has done quite well with school funding, and I would not even argue that point. I am thankful for that. I believe that education has to be one of the main themes. As you'll see by my questions, I'm not arguing about the funding, but if you have advice on how to react to these increases, where the funding can come from or how the school district can react, that is what we're looking for. We'll try to work within the system.
Adding to Chilliwack's problem -- and we do have a problem -- the first nations are there in great numbers. Tell me if I understand this matter correctly, but in the past hasn't Ottawa been funding the provinces directly to cover education of these children? Is there not a change this year with Ottawa sending money directly to the first nations? The Chilliwack School District has roughly 5 percent to 6 percent -- as I was saying, we have a high percentage -- of their total students in this category, and we are worried about the loss of that funding. What is your advice on this issue?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Part of the discrepancy in numbers that we have been putting back and forth may relate to which year we're dealing with. The growth in 1994-95 was 4 percent with a funding increase of $6.2 million. But the projected enrolment growth for 1995-96 is 3 percent with a block funding change of $2.8 million.
To give you a little further detail on why there seems to be a bit of a reduction, it relates to one specific item that's referred to as the student density item. This is not with respect to the brilliance, or lack thereof, of students. Rather, it has to do with the number of students in the funded area that the system has. Because we have added so much in the way of facilities to Chilliwack, the student density factor has dropped way down as the new facilities have opened. There has been a decrease in that particular item of about 234,000 in the coming school year. As I said before, they may also have made an error in their transportation numbers, and I'm sure they will inform us of that if that is the case.
With respect to aboriginal funding, the federal government has been responsible for providing the core amount for aboriginal status students on reserve. Apart from that, the province puts in some funds targeted to aboriginal education over and above that amount. You are correct, the federal government is in the process of making, or has made, a unilateral decision to go to direct funding of bands if the bands so choose. Local education agreements, then, between boards and bands must be put in place. We have about one-third of aboriginal students covered by local education agreements now. We must see that expand to, hopefully, 100 percent of aboriginal students.
I am sending out a letter to all boards today or tomorrow to advise them -- they know already, but I'm formally advising them -- of the federal move. I think the federal move is an error. I believe it is a bit mischievous. I'll make it clear: I think that although we agree with the participation of aboriginal people in decision-making all the way through and agree with the direct funding concept, the question is a transition period to get there such that we have local education agreements in place covering all status on-reserve aboriginal children. I will be advising the boards in the next day or so as to these developments and with my advice as to how they approach it.
R. Chisholm: In that first question, the figures and the forecast of what they estimate are all from last September. As you can see with the Chilliwack aboriginals, we do have a problem with the number of bands we have. Like you've already said, you don't have agreements with all of them. It is a potential problem in that area that maybe you could look closer at.
Of course, every school board in the province thinks they could do better managing their own budgets. If the ministry would get out of the picture, my board is probably no exception in this area. So my question is: why not meet the challenge of the local boards and give them free rein, maybe for only one or two boards on a pilot basis, and see if they can manage their total budget without being told where to put certain dollars? If we can move health care delivery to a local level, why can we not do this in education too?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The vast majority of the funds transferred to districts is given to them without ties. They make their decisions. There are only three areas that funds are tied to in the operating budget. We have a cap on total admin spending. The board can figure out how to do that best, and if the board can do it even more efficiently, as many boards do, they can spend less than the cap on the administrative side and transfer those funds to any other programs they wish to.
With respect to aboriginal funds -- the targeted amount that the province adds, the augmented amount that the province adds -- it is my view that if boards count aboriginal students and ask for the additional funds for each aboriginal student, then they had better be able to demonstrate to me that they in fact spent the funds on aboriginal students. I have targeted that amount, and I have insisted that they enter into a dialogue leading to informed consent with the bands.
Unfortunately, we had some boards that were receiving from Victoria substantial aboriginal funds and not showing expenditures through their budget process of anything, or showing expenditures that were far, far less than what they were claiming for aboriginal purposes. So I will keep in place the targeted funding, first for total admin spending and second for aboriginal spending.
[ Page 13734 ]
The third area that is targeted is special needs. Again, that is a floor that I specify, and virtually every district already, of their own volition, is spending more than the floor. So it provides little or no constraint on their decision-making. If boards can figure out how to reduce admin spending and transfer the savings over to aboriginal to special needs or to any other education program, I urge them to.
I believe that the restraints I have put on them are minimal and reasonable, and in fact the benefits that have occurred as a result of the now forced dialogue with aboriginal bands have been significant, and we have seen a significant decrease in the percentage of the budget expended on administrative expenses.
[5:30]
R. Chisholm: Due to the hour, I suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]