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)
MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 11
[ Page 13815 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. E. Cull: Today in the members' gallery we have some special visitors. His Excellency Jorgen M. Behnke, Ambassador of Denmark to Canada, is visiting Victoria today with his wife, Mrs. Maria Gabriele Behnke. The ambassador is accompanied by John Petersen, honorary consul of Denmark in Vancouver, and Judy Petersen. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.
D. Lovick: Seated directly behind our guests from Denmark are two other guests I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming. John Hagen, who is, of course, no stranger to these precincts, is sitting next to a gentleman by the name of Alan Whitehorn. Alan is a professor of history at Simon Fraser University who currently holds the J.S. Woodsworth Chair in Humanities. So I'd ask all my colleagues to please make them most welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Today in the legislative buildings are 70 grade 10 students from Britannia Secondary School. They are accompanied by Ms. Brown and Mr. Walker. Of course, they are from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Would you give them a very warm welcome.
G. Janssen: Seated in the gallery today are two constituents, Bev Hovind and Anne Evans. Mrs. Hovind is the mother of Kaylee Hovind, and Ann Evans was Kaylee's personal attendant. I do believe, hon. Speaker, that the Minister of Education also has some remarks he'd like to make. I ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Kaylee Hovind was a hero. She was a young person who suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease whom I met about a year or a year and a half ago when she demonstrated some speech recognition software. That enabled her to speak a poem of her own creation and to have a computer do the interpretation, the typing and then the printing on her behalf. Kaylee passed away recently. I would like the House to recognize that, and to know something of her and of the extraordinary efforts that her mother, Bev, and her personal attendant, Anne, have made over the years on her behalf. Bev will be doing a walk in mid-July to help raise funds. She'll be walking from Port Alberni over to Stanley Park, with the assistance of firefighters and, I understand, motorcycle riders. Would you join with me and with the member from Port Alberni in making Kaylee's mother and aide welcome.
A. Hagen: I want to join my hon. colleague in welcoming my husband, John Hagen, to the house. I also want to take this opportunity to say why he is here. We attended the museum's Empires Beyond the Great Wall exhibit today. I just want to take this opportunity to encourage every member and every constituent who has an opportunity to see that fine exhibit to do so. I note that one of the special things about it was to watch the children -- who are, I think, the best evaluators of an exhibit -- and their fascination with what they were seeing. It was a wonderful hour, and I commend it to all members of the assembly and to all British Columbians.
E. Conroy: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce a constituent of mine, Elaine Whitehead. Elaine also happens to be my constituency assistant; she's the glue that holds our constituency together. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I too would like to recognize a constituent and another one of those persons who makes it all happen back in the constituency office: my constituency assistant, Katrina Mudiman.
REBUILDING OF PORT RENFREW BRIDGE
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. 21. Since the collapse of the bridge linking Port Renfrew with southern Vancouver Island, residents of that community have pressed the government for a replacement. Due to constant government bungling, the San Juan River crossing is the most expensive footbridge in provincial history. Just last week residents were again told that the opening would be further delayed. Can the minister explain why, at this late date, the residents of Port Renfrew are still without a safe, reliable bridge over the San Juan River?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice.
COST OF CUPE INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
L. Stephens: Kelowna's Springvalley Secondary School started a volunteer-run lunch program that was successful. It made a profit, which was given back to the school to feed more children and to buy equipment. Less than six months after the program was established, CUPE filed a grievance arguing that the volunteers represented a form of contracting out.
Will the Minister of Education explain why schools receiving government program funding to feed hungry kids in programs run by parent volunteers must now hire a CUPE administrator?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The school lunch program, which is one of the finest initiatives this government has undertaken, feeds thousands of hungry children with either a breakfast program or a lunch program, thereby better preparing them for their day in school. This exceptional program is under the direction and administration of the districts. If a district is having a difficulty with respect to this program, I would expect the member would raise that with the district.
L. Stephens: The Liberals support the lunch programs, but the Liberals do not support waste. Government waste is what this is about. The NDP government hurt education when it removed it as an essential service, and now the NDP has placed absurd and costly regulations on schools that are simply trying to feed hungry children. This CUPE program is 200 percent more expensive than the volunteer program. Will the Minister of Education tell this House how many of our precious taxpayer dollars are being wasted by using CUPE administrators instead of parent volunteers to feed those hungry children in our schools -- how much money?
[ Page 13816 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite has a complaint about the activities of a particular school board, she should raise that issue with the school board. We have put in place the K to 12 employers' education association to do the bargaining with the employees of the districts across the province. I would bring the House's attention back to the fact that it was this government that had the foresight to put a tremendous program in place that is much appreciated across the province.
[2:15]
PAYMENTS FOR CONSULTATION ON COLUMBIA RIVER DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS
F. Gingell: In the 1995-96 budget, the NDP have included a $250 million lump sum downstream benefits payment in general revenues. Before the release of this year's budget, the Minister of Finance sought three opinions on the propriety of including the sale, the rights of which do not even begin until 1998, as general revenue in this year's budget. Will the Minister of Finance please inform this House the total cost to the province of obtaining these opinions, both from outside consultants and within the bureaucracy?
Hon. E. Cull: As I don't have that information with me, I'll take the question on notice.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, hon. member. The member has a new question?
PAYMENTS TO NOW COMMUNICATIONS
F. Gingell: Ron Johnson's NOW Communications seems to have received at least $20,000 for supplying a telephone number and depositing and issuing a few cheques, an amount substantially greater than B.C. Telephone or Jim Green would charge for the same service. Doesn't the Premier consider that this blatant patronage payoff breaches his number one promise that an NDP government would put an end to secret deals and special favours for political friends?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I tried to make a question out of that ideologically extreme and tainted question. What I will try and do when I go back and read Hansard is determine what the question is; until then I'll take it on notice.
FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. Over this past weekend, 600 people, including the Minister of Agriculture, gathered at Williams Lake to protest the federal Liberals' gun control legislation. Just a few days before that rally the Attorney General told us in this House that this government supports Alan Rock's onerous bill. Which is it, hon. Premier: does the Minister of Agriculture represent the cabinet's position on gun control, or has the Attorney General just failed to convince him of what this government's position is?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's really hard to figure out what the Reform position is on anything. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca said that he is in favour of the decision we made on the Kemano project; the Reform MP up there is against it. We have heard that this provincial Reformer is against the gun laws, and yet the federal Reform MP from Calgary is in favour of these gun laws. When the Reform Party makes up its mind, maybe we can have a decent debate.
In the meantime, as I have said before in this House, I want to make it crystal-clear that, with regard to a federal law, this government wants to make sure that automatic weapons and guns that are in the hands of dangerous criminals are out of the hands of those dangerous criminals and not killing innocent British Columbians. We have also said that we don't want to have the tens of thousands of law-abiding British Columbians who hunt and who shoot for competitive sport hassled by a bureaucratic, expensive, time-consuming mess of administration. We are watching and working very carefully to make sure that genuine British Columbians, who are not criminals, are going to be able to have those guns and not be hassled by the federal government.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: It's refreshing to know that the Premier should follow and agree with Svend Robinson's position, because he is a NDP federal member. No doubt there are other MLAs in the cabinet who would like to represent their rural constituents in opposing this very, very onerous gun control legislation, which will not deal with the specific guns that the Premier mentioned in the earlier answer. If the Attorney General can't even persuade his own fellow cabinet members to follow his position and this government's position, how can the Premier hope to convince British Columbians that he is representing their best interests?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the Reform Party, we have a consistent position on Kemano: no, the Kemano completion is not going to be completed. That's clear, unlike Reform -- you've got two different positions.
Unlike Reform on gun laws, we've said very clearly.... I'll tell you, the MLAs who have pushed the hardest to make sure that the gun laws are fair to rural British Columbians are the New Democrat MLAs from the north, the interior and the Kootenays. They're going to continue to push, instead of having two different positions like Reform does.
B.C. HYDRO INTERNATIONAL'S ROLE IN YACYRETA DAM
D. Jarvis: Last week in the House the Minister of Employment and Investment stated that the cabinet will review the projects that are generated by B.C. Hydro International Ltd. He said they would ensure that they maintain standards that are acceptable to British Columbia. Considering that the chair of B.C. Hydro said last week that the joint venture with Paraguayan and Argentinean partners has already been signed, my question is: did the cabinet and this minister approve of this outrageous venture on the dam project, which the Argentinean President, as we said before, considers a monument to corruption?
Hon. G. Clark: B.C. Hydro International Ltd. is pursuing opportunities -- obviously internationally -- to export our expertise, to create jobs in British Columbia and to generate revenue back as a return on B.C. Hydro, this tremendous asset the people of British Columbia own. Memorandums of understanding are routinely signed in the course of pursuing these
[ Page 13817 ]
kinds of undertakings. Prior to any funds being committed, they have to get through the B.C. Hydro International Ltd. board, the board of directors of B.C. Hydro and, of course, the government's review of this question, including all the guidelines with respect to environmental, ethical and social screens, which cabinet will be reviewing very shortly. After they are completed, these will then have to be reviewed in that light.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: The minister is a true Pecksniffian, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago, on Earth Day, the Premier was caught with his pants down on the Three Gorges dam project in China. He has now allowed B.C. Hydro to get involved in another social and environmental nightmare, in Argentina. Can the minister tell the House on whose direction B.C. Hydro entered into this outrageous joint venture, and whose signature appears on the bottom line on behalf of B.C. Hydro, which is causing the same problems for the Argentineans as the B.C. government is causing for the Cheslatta Indians? There is a comparison here.
Hon. G. Clark: This defender of environmental values! This is the man who wants mining in the Tatshenshini park. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say recently -- I think it was at a fundraiser, with every Howe Street crony in British Columbia at the table -- that they are going to privatize B.C. Hydro. This corporation, which generates significant wealth -- $700 million in income to British Columbians -- creates thousands of jobs, is about to build the Stave Falls generating plant, a fifth unit at Revelstoke, another unit at Seven Mile.... They want to give this huge economic engine to their friends on Howe Street. Every time B.C. Hydro looks internationally so that the taxpayers can get a significant return on their investment, so that we can create more jobs in British Columbia, they stand up and criticize it; but not once will they stand up and criticize their Howe Street friends.
GIBSONS BYPASS LAND SALE
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment and minister responsible for B.C. 21. It's about the Gibsons bypass, a project funded under B.C. 21. Will the minister tell us why they would sell a parcel of land -- lot 1401 -- in 1992 to Mr. James Greatbanks, who is the owner of TNL Construction, which is right in the middle of the bypass, only to have to buy the land back one year later, and why there was not, in fact, a proposition put forward to subdivide that land before the sale to this individual, who then became the successful bidder on the project?
Hon. G. Clark: If it's as the member says, it sounds like a very good question. I'll certainly look into that. We obviously are committed to completing the Gibsons bypass. I know the member has advocated that for some time. We're getting on with the job. TNL won the contract fair and square -- a low-bid process -- and we're proceeding with that. If there's any nefariousness or underhanded dealings with respect to TNL or any other company with respect to the Gibsons bypass, we'll certainly take it very seriously. I'll get back to the member on that.
PRIVACY CONCERNS ABOUT PHOTO ID SUPERCARD
L. Reid: The Ministries of Health and Social Services have been discussing the supercard, the photo ID card, since October 1993. Last week the B.C. Civil Liberties Association questioned the degree of government surveillance associated with the implementation and use of supercards. Would the Minister of Social Services disclose exactly why she chose to exclude the information and privacy commissioner from her ministry's discussions regarding implementation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're not excluded; they're included in the discussions.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Hon. D. Miller: Responding to a question taken on notice by the Premier on April 26 concerning a report on payments to the chief appeal commissioner of the WCB, the answer is as follows. The member who asked the question, I think, is more than a day late and perhaps more than a dollar short. The WCB president and CEO, Dale Parker, has informed the chair of the board of governors that Revenue Canada has recently conducted a benefits and employment income audit covering the period January 1991 to December 1994, including the contract of the chief appeal commissioner. The audit is now in the process of completion by Revenue Canada. The board's ongoing responsibility is to ensure that proper procedures and practices are in place at the board. The president has assured the chair of the board of governors that he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the board remains compliant with all aspects of the Income Tax Act.
REBUILDING OF PORT RENFREW BRIDGE
Hon. G. Clark: I took a question on notice a few minutes ago, and I would like to respond if I could. This is with respect to the Port Renfrew bridge. Earlier this spring a shortage of steel supplies resulted in a three-week delay. The project has also been delayed by a drafting error by the contractor's shop, which resulted in one of the structural support beams being constructed approximately eight inches too high. The projected opening date is May 13. Construction work is continuing while the support beam is being fabricated.
We've conducted, I think, a significant consultation process. We know the community frustrations. We ask them to bear with us for another ten days. I'm advised that at that time, on May 13, it will open. Hopefully, they'll be happy with the final product.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, for the purposes of, hopefully, concluding the estimates of the Ministry of Education. Thereafter, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and
[ Page 13818 ]
Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism. In the House, I call second reading, continued debate, on Bill 2.
[2:30]
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995
(second reading continued)
C. Serwa: It is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995. It is a rather interesting bill in that I don't believe it has anything in the way of philosophy or much in the way of principles in it. Normally, a bill like this would be handled under sort of a miscellaneous statutes act. It would seem, certainly from having listened to a great deal of the debate on this particular bill, that there has been a considerable amount of latitude given to the bill. As a matter of fact, much of the debate has been very similar to the debate on the budget speech itself.
In saying that, and expecting a similar amount of latitude, we are going to have to look at the bill, question the reasons behind this bill and what it is striving to do. Obviously, seeking the sources of revenue is always a very, very important aspect of this particular government. They have increased taxation in the province of B.C. dramatically over the four budgets they have tendered, directly and indirectly, in both particular fields. They have been very effective at that and even more effective at spending those revenues -- and more, and more, and more.
Over the past few years we've heard a great deal of response to questioning, and statements from government ministers. Members on the government's side were questioning members on this side: "Is this a spend-more day or a save-more day?" as if the concern that we might have for highways and transportation-type projects or other capital projects, be they law courts or public health facilities or other necessary facilities such as schools in our constituencies, somehow constitutes part of this growing deficit.
When we look at what the government has done, we are going to have to understand that in the first two and three budgets of this current government it really ran away with itself -- not in the expenses for capital-type projects, because that was farthest from their minds. In the early budgets, where Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- which provides, creates and builds wealth in the province -- was reduced.... That budget was cut by 41 percent. It was obviously not a priority of this government. Economic Development, which certainly provided a great deal of the environment that promoted small business and industry in the province, was impacted by a cut of 51 percent. Agriculture and Fisheries, a true creator of wealth in British Columbia, had its budget reduced by 16 percent. And here we have a government which has promoted the concept of agriculture and economic viability. But it's simply a promotion in words, obviously not in deeds. Transportation and Highways was reduced by 15 percent.
The reason I'm bringing these figures in is to remind the public out there -- who are going to make a decision very soon through an election, not only in Abbotsford but in the provincial election within the year, probably next spring -- so that they are able to assess and understand where the priorities of this government have been.
They cut down the sustainable environment fund, which was created by the former Social Credit government to enable research and development and to finance all sorts of environmentally wise projects. The recycling of used tires was one of those that was very favourable and received high recognition, and has become a very successful industry, producing all sorts of materials from that recycled automobile tire. The battery recycling process was another positive one. The revenue from those has financed additional work that has benefited the environment. But fundamentally, that fund was cut by 42 percent by the current government.
What did happen with the current government was that shortly after they became government they took away several things. They repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act which, for the first time, put fairly significant restrictions on the financial activities and responsibilities of government. They were clearly spelled out. And while they had voted for that act when they were in opposition, they repealed it immediately they became government. Fairness to taxpayers is what has to be what government is all about.
The other element they negated very quickly and repealed was the Compensation Fairness Commission. That was structured by the former government to get a handle on wage increases that were going into the public sector, so that there was a relationship with what the private sector was settling and what the taxpayer could afford. Again, that bill was repealed. So we have some of the fiscal control measures that were repealed by the current government, and they started shovelling money off the back of that truck.
In the four years that they have been government they have increased the public sector employees -- full-time-equivalents -- by approximately 4,000. When they reduced the controls in public sector wage increases, they had successful contracts negotiated with their favourable negotiators which exceeded three times the inflation rate. That was dramatically higher than the private sector was able to settle for and certainly much higher than the taxpayer was able to afford. They have really run away with themselves on that. They have fundamentally spent billions of dollars, with not only the increase in public sector staff but also the increase in public sector wages.
It doesn't matter what area you run into, whether it's the BCTF, the public sector employees, the direct provincial employees or the indirect provincial employees, we have paid more and more of our money -- not for delivering programs, not for providing goods for people in the province, but simply for providing higher wages. In education, they keep talking about the student and the needs of the student, but the focus of the BCTF has not been the student or the learner in the system at all. The focus of the BCTF has been wages and working conditions for teachers in the system, and they have become an increasingly heavy cost.
Compensation fairness had certainly restricted settlements to what was deemed fair and reasonable in line with other settlements. When these people became government they negated that, and school districts that had settled at 9 percent and higher in wage increases -- believing that the compensation fairness commissioner would reduce them to approximately 4 percent or perhaps 4.5 percent, which was happening in the province -- found that they had to pay the settled rate whether it was 9 percent or 11 percent. In large school districts like Surrey, this cost the school board a lot of
[ Page 13819 ]
money. The government then failed to provide the extra money that they had settled in those districts, and the school districts themselves were forced to reduce various programs for students to try to find the wage package.
The point I'm trying to make is that this government in its earlier years had negated public interest to a great extent. Now that we're coming closer to an election, we find that they're talking about infrastructure and supporting mining. The hon. minister is talking about supporting small business. Well, it's fine to talk about it, but words are cheap, because there is an overabundant supply of words. The public out there has to be concerned with looking at the deeds, and the deeds of this government have been anything but looking after small business or the mining sector.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: By far, by far. Well, the inertia of good Social Credit government carries on quite a ways.
This government has lost its focus. It has never had a focus of representing the general interest in the province, and that comes through time and time again. It's abundantly clear that their responsibility is to focus on the special interest groups and make certain that they're fat and sassy. I guess they've done that, because while the union cry is to redistribute the wealth of the rich, powerful and privileged in society in British Columbia, the unions themselves under this government have become the rich, the powerful and the privileged.
Look at the construction industry, and look at the stranglehold that the construction trades unions have on this particular government. What has it amounted to? We had projected that the so-called fair-wage policy, which was really a fixed-wage policy, would cost several hundred million dollars. The sometimes quotable and sometimes altogether too forthright Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks told us in this Legislature about the construction of his house, and in a self-righteous manner he told us that while he had a non-union contractor build his new home, he was paying wages under the so-called fair-wage policy. When questioned in this Legislature, he was asked if it cost more, and he said it did. He said it cost a lot more, and that's what we always said on the opposition side when that package was brought in.
We said it would cost the people of the province more than $200 million for that fair-wage policy, and it's impacting negatively the ability to complete the Island Highway project simply because of the accelerated costs. What the government has done through a form of duress or arm-twisting, if you will, is to say to the Vancouver Island Highway contractors: "If you play ball with us, we'll play ball with you. After all, you'll make more money, our people will get looked after, and only the taxpayer will be injured."
And that's what's happened. Everything was done quite well. Principles were probably not only compromised but bent, and I don't understand this type of principle. Nevertheless, the costs have run away with the Island Highway project, and they've run away with public-funded projects throughout the province. The government is trying to be more and more intrusive, to help their friends and supporters in the construction trade unions and, in fact, in all unions. So that's where the money has gone.
Before we've received them, we have squandered away already the downstream benefits from the Columbia Basin. Again, the cheap-shot, pork-barrel philosophy is trying to save the skin of six members in a designated area of the Columbia River Basin, which may or may not have any relevance to any injury or impact or, as they say, historical injustice that took place in the Columbia River Basin. Nobody is going to blow by me the fact that a Cranbrook or a Fernie or a Rossland somehow was negatively impacted, but they're all beneficiaries of this pork-barrel act that the government is trying to push through this Legislature. I oppose that. I think British Columbia is for British Columbians. When the provincial government is looking at things, they should be looking at the broad scope of their provincial responsibility rather than at the traditional pork-barrel approach this current government is taking. So they're squandering all sorts of money, when the minister has said in the budget that there is a tax freeze, that there are no new taxes.
[2:45]
We just heard the statement in question period from the Employment minister on the fact that B.C. Hydro is now apparently contributing some $700 million to the provincial coffers. In the last several years B.C. Hydro -- which is really not a taxing authority, but it dominates the power industry in the province -- has increased their power rates by 22 percent in order to provide more revenue for the current provincial government. I don't care who collects the taxes or under what name those taxes are collected, they still impact John Q. Public. They impact not only John Q. Public, but also the people whom these individuals in government pretend -- and I say pretend realistically -- to support: the less advantaged, the poor people, the working poor in the province. A larger and larger percentage of their disposable income is directed towards Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro. So there we go. There is the ripoff of the provincial taxpayer, but we do it a bit at arm's length and call it something different. I can't call it anything different than, at the very kindest, indirect taxation.
A portion of the Columbia River Basin money has gone into general revenue. It's really not general revenue. It's an extraordinary sum that has come to the province through the vision and foresight of former Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and it belongs to the entire province. It could have been spent wisely rather than bailing out these people from the debt that they've accumulated in the province. In the four budgets, they've gone from about $17.5 billion to almost $30 billion, and the direct provincial debt has gone from about $4.7 billion to about $10 million -- and they say they've got a hand on fiscal responsibility. I don't know who they're fooling other than themselves and their friends. But they're shovelling it out of the back of the truck, and as the minister says: "That's the bottom line: fool our friends and we've got it made. They'll support us, and we'll be successful in the next election." I think the public is going to be very, very interested at the time of the next election, wondering where the billions have been spent.
Were those 4,000 employees who went into the public sector needed? In many cases those are very, very partisan employees who were hired. They are New Democratic card-carrying individuals who have gone into the system. Why into the system? Why not just at the deputy minister level? Because the current government wants to make certain that nobody says a discouraging word within the system. They are virtually like thought police -- like the book that came out
[ Page 13820 ]
some time ago. They are fundamentally thought police to keep control over the system, but that didn't work well enough. Those thought police and the disgruntled career civil servants are having a great deal of difficulty with this current government and the overpowering type of control that they're putting on. They've hired a special investigator to work. That is really very interesting. Not only do they have this special investigator to snoop through the ministries, not only the Ministry of Finance -- he was hired long before the budget leak.... The reality was they recognized that tampering with the civil service in the manner in which they were was not a very positive act. They were trying to control it more dramatically, so they hired a special investigator to put fear into the hearts of individuals who have devoted their lives and their careers to the public sector in British Columbia -- again, thought control. From this side of the House, it's certainly found reprehensible, although very, very compatible with this form of socialist government.
The reality is, further to this, that they're wanting senior people in the Ministry of Finance to take lie detector tests, questioning their honesty, integrity and commitment, which is an absolute insult to the career professional in the public service of any government. We have a lot of very fine people working in the civil service. When we look at where billions have been spent and wasted, this is where they have been spent -- as I said earlier -- not in the delivery of goods and materials to British Columbians who need and want those goods.
This bill...the Corporation Capital Tax Act. Well, this is really very interesting. We're looking again at how we treat some segments. We're taxing assets, they say, but really we're taxing debt as well as equity in the corporate capital tax. Who is exempted from this? Union funds, naturally. They're very strong, influential funds in the province, and certainly, I believe, across Canada, where all sorts of authority has been conveyed to the union to tax millions of people without really any representation. They have become very large and -- because of their friends, the political arm of the union -- very influential. The problem with that influence is that it's not broad spectrum. They really don't care about anybody or anything else; they're only concerned about their own special single interest. From the union standpoint, I applaud them. That's what they're there for: to represent their people to the very best of their ability.
I certainly do not applaud the current government. They have prostituted themselves to that special interest group because of the type of funding and financing they get through an ongoing process -- and certainly the arming with people during the election process. I think that's, again, very wrong. What we have seen is that that cosy relationship between the union arm and the socialist government here has perverted government over the general interest in the province of British Columbia. No amount of words is going to negate that. The actions and deeds of this government have simply continued to confirm that.
This government will be long gone at the next election call. The Premier had better comply with building code requirements that extend to all public places in British Columbia and put panic hardware on the doors of this Legislature, because come the next election, panic hardware is what you're going to need for yourself and your cohorts -- your political lackeys -- to get out of this building.
I am not in favour of any aspect of this Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, any more than I'm in favour of the budget that was presented in this Legislature. It takes all sorts of latitudes, has no historic basis in the calculation of its figures, distorts the deficit by eliminating the deficit and moving it directly onto debt and saying: "That's really nothing." What it really means is that in spite of low interest rates, the fastest-growing expense of this current government is the amount required to pay interest on that debt, and we have relatively low or modest interest rates at the present time. I think that the public is going to be horrified with what international interest rates will do to the amount that we will be paying in the future with respect to interest on our debt.
Just to reiterate, the net result of that is the reduction in goods and services and delivery of programs that are required by the public to this government or the successive government. There's going to be an awful lot of work to do for the next government to bail this government out. I would suggest that it is not going to be done in one term. The legacy of this horrendous debt load -- by doubling the gross provincial debt, which this current government has done -- is going to take many years of reduction. While they make light of what is happening in Alberta, I can tell you that Canadians are mindful that prudent restraint is the only way to move towards the future. Even the socialist countries such as Sweden and New Zealand have seen the light.
This government continues to talk about medicare, and how medicare will be lost if a Liberal government is voted in. I'll tell you, I'd suggest that this government has created the environment where we will be losing medicare, and they are privy to information that the rest of us perhaps don't know at the present time. They are putting on a brave face, and they are trying to act the same way, but they have actually jeopardized medicare. They've jeopardized medicare by the increase in costs through the agreement -- the accord -- that they structured with the health labour unions. They're learning lessons, but I'm afraid that by the time they've learned all the lessons it will be much too late. British Columbia taxpayers will ultimately be responsible for their lackadaisical approach and their focus on special interest groups. They will bear the brunt of that, and the public will remember.
G. Wilson: I rise with respect to Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995. Often you will get a bill that, in effect, represents the nuts and bolts of what we do. Often people don't take a lot of time to read through them, but tend just to look at a bill such as this, which is made up of a whole series of amendments to a whole group of different acts. They don't really take the time to understand and to be cognizant of the impact this is going to have on the life of every British Columbian.
There is no better example of a bill that is going to affect every British Columbian than a bill such as Bill 2. What this does is tend to amend -- and some are positive amendments, I would have to say; they're not all negative amendments -- various acts with respect to tax collection; with respect to payments of fees, and service to government; with respect to the homeowner grant; with respect to the School Act, which is amended; with respect to the Property Transfer Tax Act, which is amended; and with respect to the question on mine reclamation trusts, which is amended. All of these have very significant impacts on British Columbians.
[ Page 13821 ]
I would suggest that in this bill, recognizing that we're talking about the principle of this, which is very hard to do, because this is very much a nuts and bolts bill.... These nuts and bolts are very important, because clearly, whether or not this whole economy holds together is determined by these very nuts and bolts. Let me say that the mining reclamation trust tax and tax credit system that are being presented here are going to have a very significant and very dramatic effect on a lot of people who are currently involved, or were involved, with respect to past mining operations and reclamation accounts that are now held by way of trust. The formula that is shown to us here -- the formula that talks about the amount that you have to pay being equal to the trust tax, times the beneficiary's income, divided by the trust income -- is going to provide a significant figure for some people. If you look at the overall cost, recognizing that this government has not exactly undertaken to make mining a particularly viable operation in this province to begin with, you're going to find that fewer and fewer people are going to look toward that industry as something that would be provided any incentive to proceed from this government.
Similarly, I think it is important for us to take just a moment to look at the amendments to section 134 of the School Act that are brought in by this particular bill and that address grants in lieu of taxes. The fact is that on or before February 1 of each year, commensurate with this act, the municipalities.... Those grants in lieu of taxes that are provided to municipalities through the municipal grant act or through the Auditor General Act are going to be payable to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on or before February 1 of each year.
What we had hoped to see, and what would have been much more welcome in this House from the Progressive Democratic Alliance point of view, was an amendment to the manner by which the grant-in-lieu process occurs to provide for a proposition of long-term financing of schools. I recognize that there is a technical reason for this to be brought in now, and I'm not necessarily critical of what is being intended here. But I think we have to get out of this mind-set that there is going to be the proposition of grant in lieu. We need to move away from education as an isolated tax on property and toward a broader base and a much more representative system of taxation, so we can put the needed dollars into education in a more equitable and better-distributed way. We would have liked to have seen this government move toward that.
Since we have been in this House, members of the Alliance have been calling on this government to move toward multiple-year funding. We are asking them to move toward four-year-based financing of our educational system. We have asked the government to look toward taxation reform that would accommodate the proposition of that four-year-based financing. I understand that the Ministry of Finance is currently investigating the proposition of multiple-year financing of schools, and I welcome that. Maybe we are finally being heard; maybe some serious consideration is finally being given to that proposition. That would be a welcome event. But it isn't going to work if we simply tinker with the car instead of redesigning the engine to make sure we have a more effective means of financing education.
[3:00]
I know that the whole proposition of school financing is critically important to British Columbians. I can tell you that, having just spent a weekend campaigning in the Abbotsford by-election for the Alliance candidate, Cathy Goodfellow, who is herself on the school board and knows only too well how Abbotsford has been among the lowest of any of the municipalities in receiving moneys from the government. She would like to see the kind of amendments I've just been talking about. They would very much like to know that the government has a view toward a more equitable system of tax collection and distribution.
The tinkering that Bill 2 would provide for really tells us that this is going to be more of the same. They really aren't interested in a fundamental change to the manner by which education is financed; they are simply more interested in making sure that the Ministry of Finance has a greater degree of control and authority over it. That will be the result of the legislation that we see in front of us now.
I wanted to reserve my strongest and most critical comments on this particular bill for section 2, the Ferry Corporation Act. This government is now going to allow the capacity of borrowing for the B.C. Ferry Corporation to once again rise, from $460 million to $730 million.
We have been very critical of this government where necessary, and we have been very supportive of this government when it has a good idea. We have said that the shifting of debt out of the operating budget of government into the Crown corporations or Crown agencies and then trying to pretend that somehow there is a balanced budget doesn't fool anybody. Nobody believes that we have our debt under control. Even the debt management plan the government has put forward with respect to this budget only deals with the $10 billion in direct government spending; it doesn't deal with the corporate debt load at all. This act is saying that we are going to empower the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, a corporation that should be mandated to provide the cheapest, most cost-effective and most efficient means of moving people from A to B.... It is now mandated to become a borrowing agency of government and to embark upon a brand-new, very expensive and foolhardy project about which there is a high degree of skepticism: we're going to start to try to build high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries for export.
Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is running a debt now. I believe the debt load in this last fiscal year was about $8 million more than they anticipated. So now they're running close to $38 million -- almost $40 million -- in debt, simply in their annual operating deficit. Their long-term debt, which they originally had been given empowerment to borrow, has risen from $200 million, around the time that this government came into power, up to $460 million. They're now shifting it up to $730 million worth of borrowed capital.
That is all going to have to be paid back. Somebody somewhere -- some taxpayer -- sooner or later is going to have to pick up the tab on that. It's all very well to be building the superferries, which I ride all the time, and many others do, and we enjoy it. But don't believe for a second that they pay for themselves or that they're not costly. They are. They're extremely expensive -- a very expensive proposition indeed.
If we are going to make the B.C. Ferry Corporation a natural extension of the highway, which.... I come from a riding that is dependent on the ferry. The people of the Sunshine Coast and Powell River can.... And it is mainland. I have to stress this over and over again: from Gibsons north to
[ Page 13822 ]
Powell River and to Lund is all mainland. It's not an island. Therefore it is an extension of the highway. We depend upon no less than five different ferries in order for us to be able to adequately travel to and from the cities, to do our commerce, to visit with relatives or to go to hospitals for hospital care. For a whole myriad of commercial and social and recreational uses, we have to use that B.C. ferry.
We see the debt rise -- $38 million in operating deficit. We see that we've got a $730 million borrowing capacity. Yet I don't see anything in the stakeholders' meetings that's discussing how B.C. Ferries is going to better service the Sunshine Coast. Sure, we got the so-called triangle run or L run between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, put in a manner whereby.... The way that it was recruited, in terms of employment, it hires out of Nanaimo, not out of the local economy.
There's nothing tangible in the long-term planning. And we're highly skeptical that we ought to be doing high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries. Indeed, the whole proposition of this $800 million project, which is going to upgrade two terminals and bring in these two aluminum ferries, is something that many marine engineers say is foolhardy. Why are we giving this corporation the capacity to borrow $730 million, virtually unaccounted?
F. Gingell: Because Sam Bawlf wants it.
G. Wilson: The member for Delta South says: "Because Sam Bawlf wants it." I think he's right. I think he's exactly right, because what do we know about this project? Why should we be so critical of the government? We know that this so-called high-speed catamaran project was launched originally in 1989 and was further advanced in 1990 under the former Social Credit government -- although most of them sit as Reformers now.
We know that in 1991, after this government came to power, there was a proposition whereby Mr. Bawlf -- who held the distribution rights for Cancat and for Incat technology out of Australia, in cooperation with the Nichols Bros. in Washington -- promoted B.C. Ferry Corporation to move along this path. B.C. Ferry Corporation turned it down. They looked at the project, assessed it and said this is not a good deal for British Columbia. This is too risky a proposition, because this size of the vessels has never been built anywhere. Aluminum is a very soft metal. We didn't have any capacity to build them here, because our shipyards were geared up to take tensile-steel, single-hull vessels and not aluminum catamarans. It's very hard to weld it. We have a lot of debris in the water, and if they travel at high speed, it could cost us a lot of money.
But somewhere along the line, things changed. We don't know.... We have a freedom-of-information inquiry out to try and find it, which is taking a great deal of time. We're being stalled constantly on this question. Somewhere between 1991 and the announcement that came out in 1994, we know that Mr. Bawlf was hired through the Ministry of Employment and Investment and became a principal adviser to the B.C. Ferry Corporation on how we should move. Lo and behold, what do we find? We find that the very same proposition that was being put forward by Incat, Cancat and Nichols Bros. in 1990 is now being advanced and promoted. We are now going to grant to the B.C. Ferry Corporation the opportunity to borrow $730 million so that we can start to build this ferry.
We have to ask ourselves a question about this. It's a question I've been asking. If Cancat, which was Mr. Bawlf's company, owned the sole distribution rights for that technology in British Columbia back in 1990, when did he give them up? How much did he get for them? Who bought them? Where did those distribution rights go? Incat is the parent company, and in all of the correspondence.... We have it documented in writing from the B.C. Ferry Corporation that there was meeting after meeting, with Mr. Hercus and Mr. Bawlf at Incat and Cancat promoting this technology.
Somewhere along the line, he gets hired by the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and he becomes an adviser to the company. The very technology that he at one time held the sole distribution rights for becomes part of the economy of British Columbia in terms of the direction of B.C. Ferries, to the tune of $730 million, or a good proportion of that. My understanding is that the aluminum catamarans are only going to be about $240 million of that $730 million. The rest is going to have to go into terminal upgrading so that we can accommodate these new vessels.
There are a lot of questions to be asked about this. You ask yourself: how much more could we do connecting coastal British Columbia with this kind of money if we put that investment into less fancy, less glorified, less high-tech kinds of vessels? The B.C. Ferry Corporation isn't supposed to be here to try and promote aluminum catamaran technology for export. That's not their mandate. Their mandate is to move British Columbians from point A to point B as quickly, as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible. That's what it's there to do. It's an extension of the highways. Yet we're told by the Minister of Employment and Investment, and we've seen in this little act -- tucked in here under section 2 of this nuts-and-bolts piece of legislation -- that we're now going to empower that corporation to borrow $730 million on behalf of British Columbians. What happens if it doesn't work?
The question I asked when I released this information way back in February, when we had the documentation with respect to what was taking place.... Indeed, even last year, before the announcement was made.... We know that the public relations spin doctors had been hired by B.C. Ferry Corporation in advance of the announcement. In fact, they already had the announcement worked through their public relations officers -- and we have it all documented -- even before they made the announcement. The question is: why would we want to go into this technology? Why would they not hire, lease or rent -- or whatever -- an aluminum catamaran from an operating service in Europe or in Australia, where some of these smaller versions of these vessels are currently operating? Why won't you bring one here and check it out? See if it works. Give it a two-year trial run. Train your people on it. See if in fact it's worth taking this out and putting this kind of money into this service.
If you were going to actually bring it out and test it, we would have some knowledge as to whether or not this was suitable for B.C. waters, and the dispute.... Believe me, there is a big debate right now with respect to whether or not we should be going toward aluminum catamaran ferries, and from people who are far more knowledgable in marine engineering than I am. We would know whether, in fact, it was a wise decision or not. We wouldn't need to borrow $730 million. We wouldn't be ploughing $200 million into the development of the services for our new upgrading of the shipbuilding industry so that we can work in aluminum.
[ Page 13823 ]
We also could have made an independent decision. I really question, as we move toward this proposition in section 2 for the borrowing of $730 million.... We would have made an independent assessment. All of the people who sat on the board that advised the B.C. Ferry Corporation with respect to the fast ferries were proponents of aluminum fast ferries around the world somewhere. Nobody who sat on that board was a proponent of a single-hull, tensile-steel vessel. We had people who were sent from the Ferry Corporation to seek "independent advice from Nichols Bros. in Washington." Nichols Bros. was part of the Sam Bawlf-Stuart Hercus-Incat, Cancat presentation to the B.C. Ferry Corporation in 1990 and 1991. They're part of the company. This isn't independent advice; they're all part of the same group. The material that we have that was presented, which at was soundly rejected by the management of the B.C. Ferry Corporation when the former government, the Socreds, wanted to put in this kind of spending.... The same material -- identical -- is now being advanced and promoted by this government.
I would ask those who are interested to contact me; I'll send them copies. We have it all; we have the documentation. Exactly the same material that was rejected in 1990-91 is now being promoted and presented, and we're going to borrow $730 million to put it in place. The real question is: if Mr. Bawlf held the sole distribution rights for Cancat technology in 1990, which he did -- he is still the only principal of Cancat, which is still registered -- when did he give them up? How could he be hired by the Ministry of Employment and seconded to B.C. Ferries to give advice on this subject if, in fact, he was already locked into the promotion of that very technology?
These questions have not been answered. They've been sloughed off by the Minister of Employment and Investment; they've been sloughed off by the Minister of Finance. Yet we're asked today to approve a bill that's going to allow that corporation to borrow $730 million on behalf of all the taxpayers of British Columbia. My suggestion....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: And the minister says, "Wow," as he comes to this side of the House. My guess is that he's trying to refamiliarize himself with the opposition benches because that may well be where he'll be after the next election. But who should speculate on that? We'll let the voters of the province decide.
[3:15]
The minister has to explain what's going on here, because this corporation is not a corporation that has a mandate to get involved in expensive and rather experimental technology. What if these things don't work? We build these expensive aluminum catamaran ferries, and..... I'm hearing from the president of B.C. Ferry Corporation -- whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for; he's a man of great integrity who has done well for the province in a whole variety of different services within the civil service; he's a career civil servant, and I don't try to impugn his integrity in any way at all.... But we read that people who board these ferries are going to have to wear seatbelts because the rock on it is so high that you need to belt yourself in; in rough weather you have to lash down and harness every vehicle. What are the costs of this? Why would we not bring one from where they're in service today and try it out? Surely that sounds like a more sensible plan than, by passing this bill, simply giving the B.C. Ferry Corporation the opportunity to borrow $730 million.
Let me say this: the B.C. Ferry Corporation embarked upon what I think is a most worthwhile project -- the stakeholder committee process for all of coastal British Columbia. I've already said that Powell River-Sunshine Coast depends upon the ferries. We wanted that stakeholders' committee because it meant that our livelihood and our ability to travel from our communities to others in the province would be provided with input from us in terms of how this B.C. Ferries service should function. We were given assurances when this process commenced that the capital financing plan would not be advanced before the stakeholder committees had met, determined their functional designs, decided what they wanted in terms of service and looked at what they wanted in terms of the ongoing timetabling and sailing schedules; and then it would be implemented in response to the concerns that came from the community. If that's the case, why are we now empowering B.C. Ferry Corporation to borrow $730 million before those stakeholder processes have even begun?
How much of this money is already committed? How much of this is actually after the fact? This announcement was made last year; the ten-year capital plan was embarked on in 1991. The decision to make aluminum catamarans, which is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in unproven technology, was taken in 1992. It wasn't announced until 1994, but it was taken in 1992. We've got the documentation to prove it. There has been no formal public debate on this question; you can tell by the numbers who are here today to debate this most important Bill 2. You can tell that there seems to be no interest. The reason is that the people of British Columbia don't know that what we're about to do when we pass this bill is further shackle them into long-term debt to the tune of $730 million in a completely unproven, experimental technology. It's ridiculous, and I see the member from Delta agreeing. He knows because he also comes from a community that depends heavily on the ferries. His own riding is right there where the ferry terminals are, and I know he's been a very vocal and articulate voice on this question in the past.
This is no longer an issue that needs to be pushed under the rug. This has to come forward for the people of British Columbia to understand fully and to comprehend, so that they know what it is their government is about to embark on in terms of long-term borrowing and debt. If we talk about the reduction of long-term debt, tax reform and all those things that are covered in other sections of this bill, then we have to get serious about the big-ticket numbers, the big items. I don't think we should have the borrowing power of B.C. Ferry Corporation expanded to $730 million without a good deal more research and effort provided to explain why we're embarking on this highly questionable experimental technology called aluminum catamarans.
The minister has to tell us the answers to two very simple questions for which I have failed to get any satisfactory answers. When were the distribution rights of Cancat for Incat technology given up? When were they relinquished? To whom were they relinquished, and how much money was paid in the relinquishment of them? Nobody gives away a multimillion dollar deal right on the brink of it becoming a reality. That's just too much for the comprehensive mind to believe. So when were they given up?
The other thing the minister has to tell us is this. In 1991, the senior management of B.C. Ferries absolutely and resoundingly said they had looked at this technology and did not
[ Page 13824 ]
agree with or want it. So why did they change their minds? Was it a technical or an engineering decision that changed their minds, or was it in fact a political decision? Was it pure politics that said here was a good way for them to put in place an apprenticeship work program to take people out of single steel construction into aluminum construction, so they could get marine workers upgraded into new technology?
If this borrowing by B.C. Ferries is all about the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia, then we're going about it entirely the wrong way. If we're borrowing $730 million to keep people employed in the shipbuilding industry, it seems to me that we're coming at it through the back door. The B.C. shipbuilding industry is very important, there is no question that we need to encourage the construction of vessels in British Columbia. But the province had a highly skilled industry that looked to single-hull tensile-steel vessels, and we could have and should have a long-range program for B.C. Ferry construction of smaller and faster single-hull vessels. We could then make more sailings more frequently, and thereby keep people moving. We could make B.C. Ferries do what they're indeed mandated to do, which is not to build big terminals where everybody can line up for two hours and then miss the ferry at the end because they got there only 20 minutes ahead of the sailing instead of 28 or 30 minutes ahead. Their mandate is to keep people moving by having shorter waits between sailings.
We can't approve this. We will not support it. We don't support the proposition on that one section alone, if not others. It's unfortunate, because there are other sections in this bill which I think have merit and deserve consideration. But this government is going to have to come forward to the people of British Columbia and be honest with them. The B.C. Ferry Corporation now runs at a loss. We entered into another venture for a vessel between Seattle and Victoria that ran at a loss. We need some leadership on this question, leadership that tells us that the mandate of B.C. Ferries is going to be as an extension of the highways. We're not into fancy new technologies on which we're going to risk our capital and long-term debt to try and flog abroad when there are companies that are already doing it in the private sector.
If aluminum catamaran vessels are needed here, let the private sector build them. If they could make a profit on them, and they felt they could market them and that they were worthwhile, they'd be building them here. The fact that the private sector isn't building them here and that we're going to borrow $730 million through a government agency tells us it's a losing deal. Frankly, the people of British Columbia can't afford it. We can't afford to lose any more because of the political whims of politicians of the day, who simply want to try to go out with a great big edifice in their recognition, saying: "Look what I built when I was minister."
This bill, unfortunately, must be voted down. I hope that the members opposite will recognize the seriousness of what they've put forward with respect to the borrowing powers of B.C. Ferries. I hope that the minister will take my words seriously. I don't know the extent to which the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, whose bill this is, has been consulted on what's proposed with respect to high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries. But I suggest that there needs to be a very serious second look, because those people who are far more knowledgeable in this industry than I am are telling us this is not the way to go and not a wise expenditure of money. We should not be getting into long-term capital borrowing to get into what will ultimately amount to a very expensive, losing proposition.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry I missed the students who were in here, but the previous speaker, while long-winded, was very interesting, and I'm glad the students got to hear him. In the meantime, in the precincts still are 80 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School, a very active and forward-looking high school in my riding. The students are with their teacher, Mr. Doyle. They are from grade 11; they are here. Some of them will be back in, joining us. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
F. Gingell: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke at some length. The galleries were full at one point earlier. They've all left now. I don't know whether that was his doing, or whether they knew he would end soon and it would be my turn.
But he's correct. Bill 2 requires some discussion. Section 1 deals with the corporation capital tax -- some minor changes. Now, the people of British Columbia have been waiting for the Corporation Capital Tax Act to be repealed. The Premier of the province has said publicly that when the budget is balanced, the corporation capital tax will be gone. It was here for the purpose of balancing the budget. Well, without it, of course, even the accounts produced by this government would not have shown a balanced budget if it had been repealed this year. One would have expected -- their having suggested to the people of B.C. that they've tabled a balanced budget -- that they would announce that it's going to be repealed next year. But they haven't. And I'm not surprised, because I contend, with all seriousness, that this year's budget is not balanced.
There are two or three important things when considering financial reporting. The first is consistency. You must be consistent in your treatment of revenues and expenditures. The second thing, in the public sector area, is that you must match the expenditures or the revenue with the period of time they are applicable to. In the private sector, it's critically important to make sure that you are measuring the same streams of revenues and costs -- that the costs you charge in any particular year are the costs incurred to earn those revenues. In the provincial scene or the public sector scene, the important issue is to ensure that timing is correct -- that the revenues shown are revenues of this period, and the costs shown are costs of this period.
Now, this government charged up some $22 million worth of grants in 1992 and paid for them in the last days of March, grants that were all applicable to the following year. Those of us who read the auditor general's report on the public accounts will recognize that the auditor general did not approve of that treatment. These costs were clearly costs of the following year. I'm sorry, it was at the end of fiscal '93, and they were clearly costs of '94-95, and so stated. It is the auditor general and the comptroller general who spend their time focusing on the issues of proper accounting for the public sector, which is different from the private sector.
[ Page 13825 ]
I know that the minister is expecting me to speak at this point on the issue of the recording in this year of the $250 million of downstream benefits, and I won't disappoint her. I thank the minister very much for sending me the briefing material, finally; it did take some time. I was discomfited that a period of time was allowed to pass by, which was important not because of the amount, but because of the credibility of the minister's statements and the acceptance of those statements in the public domain.
[3:30]
The auditor general has clearly stated that he does not believe it is appropriate for these revenues to be recorded in the '95-96 year. One must appreciate that the comptroller general's position is a little different, because the comptroller general is responsible to Treasury Board; but if you read his briefing document, one understands the feeling of discomfort. The minister then went out and sought an opinion from outside, from a firm of chartered accountants whose work is primarily in the private sector rather than the public sector, and they wrote an opinion which indicated that, in their opinion, this treatment was acceptable but not preferable, and it was acceptable on the basis that nothing more needs to be done. I'm sure that the Minister of Finance will agree with me that a great deal more needs to be done.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
First, time has to pass. These benefits that were sold don't even come into effect until 1998, and the provincial government clearly has a responsibility to ensure that the water storage facilities and the flow of water are operated in future in accordance with the original contracts. There may indeed be substantial costs to ensuring that those requirements of the Columbia downstream benefits treaty are in fact met in the future.
It's almost as though, in this particular case, the minister could similarly decide: why don't we take 1 percent of the consumer sales tax that the government is going to collect over the next 30 years, say from the year 1998 to the year 2028, sell it to someone at a discounted value and include that as revenue? That's a very good simile. That's exactly what this government has done: they've taken a future revenue stream from benefits that will occur in the future and do not exist at this time. The power has not been generated and has not been sold, and they have taken a portion of it -- that annual capacity that is in excess of 950 megawatts -- and sold it early for a discounted sum and included it in revenue. I can assure you that it isn't revenue, and I don't agree. When the auditor general comes to write the report and give his opinion of the financial statements for the year 1995-96, I don't think he will agree with the government's treatment, either. But then, of course, we all realize that there will be a new government when the 1995-96 financial statements come out, and they will have to deal with that issue.
The other matter that I talked about in the importance of public sector accounting is the issue of consistency and comparability. There is excluded from the consolidated revenue fund some $337 million net of revenues that will be expended by the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority. If one goes back to previous years before this change came into effect -- and its first real year is 1994-95 -- one recognizes that for this government to make the claim that the budget is balanced they have to do it in a manner that is consistent with the comparisons they make. They always go back to the year 1991-92, and the amount that was in that year for this capital highway infrastructure cost was some $389 million. That is included when they talk about the $2.5 billion that the previous administration left as a deficit in the year the government changed, but they refuse to include the $337 million net that are in this year. When you take the $250 million and the $337 million and deduct it from the $114 million supposed budget surplus, you get a deficit of $473 million, or almost half a billion dollars, and that is what the true deficit is for this year.
If they were going to make some amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act -- and I approve of the one they are making -- other than repealing the whole act, the other issue I think they should consider is restricting the exemptions for farms to single-family farms. There are many similar operations which, instead of being owned by two brothers or a father and a son, are owned by two unrelated people. The minute you start making exemptions for one particular group, you tilt the proposed level playing field in favour of one or the other. I'm sure the minister recognizes and accepts that that is not a good practice, and I commend to her the issue of two-family farms.
The previous speaker spoke at some length on the issue of increasing the borrowing power of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to $730 million, a fairly substantial increase of $270 million. We all know what it is for. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the issue of fast ferries.
The one issue that I can't seem to get anyone to take seriously and think about is the issue of the environment. This is a government that is supportive of cleaning up the environment. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks continually speaks about zero-emission vehicles, even though that technology has not been developed to the extent that it is available. But this government is talking about building ferries that will require 300,000-plus horsepower in comparison to the 68,000 horsepower that is presently required. If you make calculations of the emissions per passenger or per vehicle using some reasonable basis, the oxides of sulphur, nitrogen and carbon will be increased three to five times what they would be under S-class or C-class ferries.
If the issue is to do with the inability to get a full load into the terminal at Horseshoe Bay, surely there are better solutions than trying to build a high-speed ferry. Surely we can make some alterations at Horseshoe Bay, whether it be decking the parking lot, or putting on a floating addition of some sort to the parking lot, which is a better solution.
They are not going to get the advantages of speed from these ferries. In the summertime, the waters around this area where the problem is are full of pleasure craft. It is full of the flotsam and jetsam of the forest industry. We are not going to be able to get high speeds without impinging upon our safety standards. Although there have been some questions in the last two or three years about safety standards at B.C. Ferries, I, for one, in no way doubt their excellent record -- other than these matters recently -- and their commitment to operating safe ferries.
The suggestion has been made that these new aluminum ferries could be operated on compressed natural gas. That would supposedly reduce the amount of oxide emissions, particularly of sulphur -- there would be none -- but also of
[ Page 13826 ]
carbon and nitrogen. The government should be aware that the Coast Guard will not allow them, for safety reasons, to operate passenger ferries with compressed natural gas.
British Columbia has developed a first-class ferry fleet. The superferries work extremely well. The C-class ferries work well. There are better and easier solutions without spending huge sums of money on a technology that many of us believe is simply not appropriate for the inland waters and the strait of Juan de Fuca. If you look at where these wave-piercer ferries have been successful, their main success has been in the Irish Sea and the English Channel; it's been in Scandinavia where there are extremely rough waters, and particularly those ferries that ply the Irish Sea and any portions of the North Sea. Those waters, rough as they may be, are not subject to the pleasure craft problem, and are certainly not subject to the problem of debris and other flotsam that comes from the forest industry.
Moving on, the next section of this act deals with the homeowner grant -- raising the exemptions. This government is determined to have wealth taxes -- that's what this is -- but I would like to reiterate today, as I have in past years, that owning houses on the west side of Vancouver or on waterfront property in the lower mainland does not necessarily indicate wealth and an ability to pay substantially greater taxes than your neighbours for the same services. Many families are living in old family homes. They don't want to move because of family history in the property, or because of dealing with the issues of property transfer tax, if they were to sell, and all the additional costs that they would incur on the sale. I'd like to suggest that this is an inappropriate tax, and this government should give serious thought to repealing it.
Then we come to the changes in here on the Property Transfer Tax Act to help with issues where transfers are held up through marriage breakdown and through bankruptcy.
[3:45]
We spoke at some length last year about the way that the act was previously written, which allowed high-ratio financing exemptions from property transfer tax, being a better means and more applicable in the innumerable cases of first-time buyers than the changes that they have made. I know that the government, of course, kept saying: "Well, you're against an exemption for first-time buyers." We were not against an exemption for first-time buyers. First-time buyers were still exempt if they met the exemption requirements of the high-ratio financing. The people that this government should be trying to exempt are the people who are struggling to acquire a home; people that have minimum down payments; families who are taking on substantial future monthly commitments to acquire that home, whether it be their first residence or the move into slightly larger premises, as their family has expanded. I'm surprised that the minister didn't think that this whole issue of what they're trying to accomplish in the property transfer tax exemptions this year would take it back to the way it was in previous years.
We can't support this bill, as I say. That won't come as any great shock, I'm sure. But there are simply too many issues that this government has failed to deal with properly. The bill that they should bring in is one that requires truth in budgeting and requires them to table budgets that are not subject to wasted time and energy on the issue of their accuracy. Let's get away from that. Let's have financial statements that meet everybody's Good Housekeeping seal of approval. With that, I look forward to committee stage of this bill. It will give us an opportunity to get into the meat of many of these issues.
Deputy Speaker: To close the debate on second reading of the bill, I recognize the Minister of Finance.
Hon. E. Cull: This has been a very interesting debate, and I've listened with some interest to the various members who spoke not only this afternoon but last week when we discussed second reading of this bill. The comments that I want to reply to as I close debate today fall into two categories.
A number of the members -- not so many today as last week -- called for greater tax cuts and faulted the bill because the tax reductions in this bill are minor in nature; the rest of the debate seemed to revisit the budget debate that we had some weeks ago. I want to return to the comments I made at the very beginning of second reading debate, and that was that we took great pains this year to go out and talk to people about what they wanted to see in the budget. Overwhelmingly, people told me that this was not the year to make tax cuts; this was the year to pay down debt. So for those members who called for further tax cuts, I have to tell them, as I said in my introductory remarks, that if you're doing that, you're not listening to what people around this province told us -- not just some narrow group, but people from business, labour and local government leaders. Everyone almost unanimously supported the notion of paying down debt this year and leaving tax cuts for another year.
I have to point out the hypocrisy in the comments that some members of the official opposition have made in speaking on this bill, because not only have they called for greater tax cuts -- they've talked about $1.5 billion in tax cuts by the time you add up school property taxes and the corporation capital tax, and have them come entirely off the budget -- but they have still not yet said how they will, with those tax cuts, balance the budget and maintain services to a province that's growing faster than any other province in Canada. I think that it's irresponsible to call for deep tax cuts, or to even go further and promise such tax cuts to people, without telling them that the consequence is either going to be a drastic reduction in services or higher taxes somewhere else, because you can't pull $1.5 billion out of a hat and still have your budget balance.
The member for Surrey-White Rock -- I'm just going to look for my notes on this -- said that we should be listening to the people, and I certainly agree with him. He said we should be listening to the Business Council of B.C. I'm sorry that member is not available to hear my response on that, but the president of the Business Council of B.C. said: "We welcome both the elimination of the deficit in 1995-96 and the clear emphasis on debt reduction in the new budget." Then he went on to say:
"[The Minister of Finance] deserves good marks for leading an open and constructive prebudget consultation. It is apparent that she has listened to the advice she received from business and others who have been urging the government to scale back its borrowing in order to get the province's debt under control."
So I agree with the comments from the member for Surrey-White Rock: we should listen to the Business Council of B.C., and the Business Council of B.C. says that we have listened to the people.
[ Page 13827 ]
There has also been a lot of talk, both from that member and from the opposition Finance critic, about an honest set of books. Let's talk about the people who don't have a vested partisan interest, as my critic across the way has. Let's talk about people who have no partisan interest in terms of talking about our budget -- the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, which has said: "I think it's one of the better documents they've come up with." Or, if we want to go to an even less partisan and more respected source, we can go to our own auditor general, who gave our deficit last year a clean bill of health in terms of our reporting. I expect him to do the same again this year.
The member opposite likes to talk about all the various accounting opinions that have been offered on the Columbia downstream benefits. I have to say that I'm not an accountant, and as a layperson I have to take the advice that is given to me. When we get three sets of different advice on how to treat the downstream benefits, it puts a Finance minister in a very difficult position. But what the member is asking me to do.... He needs to be aware of this, because for the government to override the recommendations of the comptroller general, Treasury Board -- which is a committee of cabinet, a committee of politicians -- has to pass an order to do that. I don't think that with something like this, where we're not experts, Treasury Board should be overriding our comptroller general. We've taken the advice that he has offered; he has had a very difficult job this year trying to match off differing opinions, and when we finalize the public accounts in the fall we will finally resolve this issue once and for all.
The member opposite talks a lot about how this is money that is paid for services or products that have not yet been delivered. He's mistaken. The $250 million payment this year is a onetime payment only for signing it, and it has nothing to do with the services that are going to be provided in the future.
There's a lot that I could say about mines. We've talked about the fact that there are benefits to the mining industry in this piece of legislation; most of the speakers opposite who have talked on it have said that it's too little. They've ignored the fact that last year in our budget we brought in a comprehensive package totalling over $100 million worth of benefits to the mining industry. We have three new mines reopening in this province this year, and I have to ask the members how much more they want the taxpayers of this province to give to an industry that has had considerable help from the taxpayers in the last few budgets.
We've heard a lot of talk about investment, and I simply want to remind the members opposite -- because particularly the Leader of the Official Opposition has said on a number of occasions that he prefers Ralph Klein's approach to Mike Harcourt's, and has said that he will pursue that approach -- that British Columbia saw double the non-residential business investment that Alberta saw last year. We had 23.5 percent growth in investment in this province, compared to about 11 percent in Alberta. I don't think we have anything to apologize about in this province when it comes to new business investment in our province.
Let me turn a bit from the official opposition to the comments that were made by the member for Peace River North last week. I have to say that it's very difficult to take those comments seriously when he talks about the finances of this province being in a mess. That member ran for the party -- I know he's since switched parties -- that left us in one of the biggest financial messes this province has ever found itself in. He went on to criticize the debt management plan that is in our budget -- a debt management plan that was put together by a group of business leaders, and that was conveyed to me over the signature of the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade with the comment in it that this plan should be beyond partisan politics and that we should just accept that there are some sound, businesslike approaches to managing debt, which, if the government accepted -- and we did, in our budget -- we would then be able to move ahead and make sure that we keep our debt affordable and the lowest in Canada, and the lowest interest costs in the country.
He also talked a lot about spending. I have to again remind all hon. members that this budget's spending increase of just under 3 percent is the lowest increase in spending in 25 years. That means that you've got to go back through the Vander Zalm government, the Bennett government and the Barrett government to W.A.C. Bennett before you find a lower increase in spending in a provincial budget.
While I believe the opposition members are serious when they say they would cut spending even more than that.... But it would be drastic, it would hurt B.C. families and it would be out of touch with the modern history of our province, no matter which party was in power.
In closing, I want to deal with the only serious question that we got from across the floor. I think it was the member for Richmond-Steveston who asked the question: is the B.C. Ferries capital plan part of our debt management plan? I want to assure that member that indeed it is. All of our capital plans, all of our borrowing and all of our capital construction are factored into the debt management plan. The debt management plan is what is guiding this government when it comes to making capital investments, and the ferries program is absolutely no exception to that.
In conclusion, I have to say that those who want to carry on talking about what I think one member called the unhappy financial state of the province just don't want to tell people the real story of what's going on in B.C. British Columbia has the best economy in Canada, we have created 40 percent of all the new jobs in this country in the last three years, we have had the fastest growth rate, we have had tremendous increase in investment, we have the lowest per capita debt and the lowest interest payments, and we continue to have the best credit rating in the country. As my colleague the Minister of Environment would say, we also have the best environmental rating, which means not only are we financially well managed but we are also protecting our natural environment, which is very important to our economy and our quality of life.
With that I move second reading of Bill 2.
[4:00]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 28 | ||
|
Priddy |
Charbonneau |
Garden |
|
Hagen |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Cull |
Harcourt |
Clark |
|
MacPhail |
Barlee |
Janssen |
|
Beattie |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
[ Page 13828 ] | ||
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
| Lali | ||
| NAYS -- 11 | ||
|
Wilson |
Stephens |
Hurd |
|
Reid |
Gingell |
Dalton |
|
Jarvis |
Anderson |
Symons |
|
Warnke |
Neufeld | |
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 14.
TOURISM ACT
(second reading)
Deputy Speaker: I'll give members an opportunity to depart the chamber before we resume, and then I will recognize the Minister of Social Services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I've been up on my feet several times to make this introduction, but I want to welcome and say hello to the students from Van Tech, who are with us now. I introduced them earlier, but they are now here. They are from grade 11, and I'm sure they'll be learning a great deal as we sit together in this chamber.
Hon. B. Barlee: The purpose of this bill is to establish a broader range of activities and priorities for the Tourism ministry. Bill 14 essentially updates and clearly reflects the powers, functions and activities of the ministry. This bill, as proposed, also gives Tourism a statutory presence in land use planning and resource management, really for the first time. This change is essential to tourism, tourism growth and prosperity, as this sector depends upon the province's natural resource base to attract visitors from all around the world.
Participating in land use decisions will allow the Tourism ministry to support the Super Natural British Columbia image, which we all know is well known around the world. The bill also encourages the development and growth of tourism through policies, plans and programs that reflect the needs and long-term interests of tourism. The bill continues to encourage the development of the motion picture industry in British Columbia, which incidentally is doing extremely well.
The proposed bill includes several other recommendations by the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, known as COTA, in its position paper "A New Legislative Mandate for Tourism." COTA recommended that the ministry's mandate be expanded to include resource planning and management. The bill involved interministry consultation with the Ministries of Aboriginal Affairs, Forests, Employment and Investment, and Environment, Lands and Parks. So another four ministries are also in on it. The bill supports the commitment made by Premier Harcourt on October 25, 1994, by representing tourism resource interests in regional resource planning and policy development.
G. Farrell-Collins: I am just collecting my papers here. As usual, the day's agenda, as it starts, doesn't always unfold as one anticipates. But I am more than glad to enter into this debate.
In reading through it and talking to people and, indeed, talking to the member for Saanich North and the Islands -- who is the critic for Tourism, but was unable to be here today to participate in this debate -- my understanding of this bill is that the new Tourism Act is designed to do slightly different things than the old one. It has given the minister a somewhat changed mandate in that he now has the duties of reflecting tourism interests in land use and in resource management decisions -- which I think is probably a good thing. It is time somebody started to do that, because the tourism industry is one of our fastest-growing and cleanest industries.
The jobs in the tourism industry aren't always the big high-tech jobs, although they are becoming more so in some areas. I know a number of helicopter pilots who make pretty good money making sure that the skiers who come to British Columbia are happy. I am encouraged to see that reflection in the act.
I think, however, that perhaps the New Democrats and certainly some of the comments that were made by the member for Saanich North and the Islands on the philosophy of where are we going to go with tourism in the next decade or so diverge somewhat, although not completely. There are somewhat different views. I, and members of my caucus, believe quite strongly that there is a role for the government to play in tourism. But rather than be the actual agent that's in there developing all the marketing schemes and promotional plans and doing all the training physically -- the hands-on portion of tourism -- the ministry should probably take more of a leadership role. It should allow those groups within the tourism industry.... Those who know it best, who make their living off of it, who are providing the jobs and the economic growth and development in tourism, would be better prepared, would contain better knowledge -- the minister shakes his head -- and would know better how tourism should be delivered. The minister shakes his head.
I know that oftentimes when you have these various groups, whether it is tourism or other ministries for that matter.... When the government is stepping in and taking a real management role, a hands-on role, in developing programs and policies, they tend to squabble among themselves a great deal and compete in sometimes ruthless ways for allotments of limited resources. Because they see that taxes are collected by the government; they go to Victoria in this case. Federally they go to Ottawa, but here they go to the province in the form of hotel taxes, social service taxes, user fees, licences and all sorts of things. Some of them end up in this ministry and some in others. Then there's this pot of money. Those various agencies and groups have to go back to Victoria, follow their revenues to Victoria, and talk with the minister and other people within the ministry and, indeed, other ministries to try and get some of that back. It becomes a group competing for very scarce resources.
I think that as the industry matures in British Columbia as it has in other jurisdictions, as tourism grows and continues to grow in B.C., as we see more investments made and as we see British Columbia's attractiveness grow internationally.... Almost every year we seem to get more and more people coming to B.C. I think the minister himself, as an individual, is a great spokesman for British Columbia. He certainly has a love for B.C., knows its culture and its heritage, and is a good advocate.
[ Page 13829 ]
As the industry itself matures, there is an opportunity for government to step back a little bit and encourage leadership among the people who are in the field. We should encourage various groups, like hotel people, outdoor and outback people, fishing people and all of the people that are involved in providing services that tourists want when they come from other parts of the province and tour B.C. internally.... People come from outside the province and outside the country. Those people who are providing those services, who are managing those industries and who are in direct contact with the people who are looking for tourism and vacation opportunities have a real sense of what they should be doing.
Yes, they're going to argue among themselves; yes, there's going to be competition; yes, they're all going to think that the money should be spent in their particular area. But I think it's incumbent upon government, as that industry matures, to start to step back -- gradually, perhaps, or a little faster than gradually -- and encourage those individual groups to start talking among themselves. Get them to compete for those scarce resources among themselves and on their own. Get them to come to government with suggestions and plans and strategies on how they're going to promote tourism and bring people here from within and from outside the province to their various regions to partake in those resources and industries. They should determine how they're going to make sure that they have the right people in the right places at the right time to service those tourists when they get here, that the people providing the services are well trained, that you get a smile when you check into a hotel instead of a grumble, that the rooms are clean, that the ski hills are in great shape and that people get a welcome when they come to B.C. There are all sorts of things that have to take place.
I suppose it's moving from a traditional view of government's role, but I think the public is starting to demand that. They're starting to demand greater efficiencies from government. They're starting to ask government to step back sometimes and let them manage their own affairs; get out of their way and allow them to do those things. It is true that those groups do compete among themselves. They're not always happy with each other, and they don't always get along; but that doesn't mean that they can't. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be playing that leadership role and putting them together and getting them to come up with a strategy of their own.
We should make sure that the money we're garnering in the form of revenue from tourism is put back into tourism to the extent that it allows them to promote it, rather than have it all come to Victoria and have them all crawl on bended knees. I know that it's a self-aggrandizement, perhaps -- the minister is smiling with those comments. I know that to have the revenues come here and then have the various operators and people come to Victoria on bended knee to ask for some of it back probably creates more headaches for the minister than he realizes. It would probably be better if we could have them sorting that sort of thing out on their own.
There are number of things which we'll be going through clause by clause when looking at the bill in more detail when we get there. I think it's fair to say that all people in British Columbia believe that tourism is a huge opportunity for this province. For the most part, it's a clean industry. As time goes by, it can and probably will create more highly skilled jobs and more small businesses, which tend to employ people to a greater extent.
There are beautiful areas of this province that are still unknown to most people. There are some fantastic valleys and rivers and mountains and archeological sites. The aboriginal culture in British Columbia is something that I think aboriginal people will want to promote around North America. We have an incredibly huge wealth of aboriginal culture -- in some areas, it's almost untouched -- that I know people from right around the world would love to come here and see. It's something I have pride about, and I know the minister and other members do too.
I notice the member for Burnaby-Willingdon at her seat, and I know she'll probably want to say something. She partakes heavily of some of the more remote areas of this province and has a lot to say about the opportunities we have.
[4:15]
I don't think we're widely divergent in our views with regard to this bill. But I think it's perhaps our philosophy that we'd like to see a little more autonomy and responsibility given to the industry to manage their own affairs, and a little less intrusion by government -- to have a step back and allow them to do things on their own and create some efficiencies.
With that, I will take my seat. I know that we are moving into committee stage of this bill, I assume sometime this week. We'll have a chance to look at the various clauses at that time.
R. Neufeld: I rise to make a few brief remarks on second reading of the Tourism Act, Bill 14. The Reform Party really does not have any basic criticism of Bill 14. We look forward to going through committee stage to deal with a few sections that we want some enlightenment on -- on what these really mean. I guess I'll just outline briefly a few of them that we have.
One of them is: "...reflecting tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions...." I guess this has a positive side. But it also has a negative side to it, because we now will put Tourism at the table in land use decisions. That could lead to further preservationist attitudes in the province.
Specifically, in the part of the province I come from, we seem to want to continually put away large tracts of land just carte blanche, because we think that at some time they may be useful for some other purpose. The economic activity that takes place in some of those areas is immense, and it certainly will have a dramatic effect on the province at some point in time if we discontinue that kind of economic development in those areas.
I'm not saying that we have to have economic development in every area of British Columbia, because we in British Columbia do have some of the most magnificent scenery anyplace in the world. I can say that because I have travelled almost all of the province. In fact, at one time my wife and I said we would not actually leave Canada until we had visited every part of British Columbia that you can get to by road. We have not accomplished that yet, and we've taken a lot of holidays. I know specifically that in my constituency there are areas just as beautiful as Banff and Jasper; we just don't have them commercialized. To be honest, I hope that they don't get commercialized like Banff and Jasper and that we do keep them as a wilderness area -- but for many uses, not just one.
[ Page 13830 ]
So there is a positive side and a negative side. I guess, further on that, we wonder what will happen to decisions that are already made regarding land use in British Columbia. Will Tourism now review all those decisions and have their input before we can really decide what's going to happen?
Also, this bill allows the minister to encourage enhancement of tourist facilities. We probably have to look at that very closely during debate, to see just exactly what that means. Does that mean that the minister will have authority now to implement new regulations and standards for motels, waterslides, helicopter skiing and whatever? Already there is a tremendous amount of regulations and rules that the tourism industry falls under -- and many other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and all those that already have regulations in place to cover them. If it means something different than what we interpret that it could mean, we'll wait for committee stage to discuss that a little further.
Another area of concern is "developing occupational standards and certification processes." Now, I know that the SuperHost program that the minister has spoken about on a number of occasions is a very good program. I think it enhances tourism in the province, and anybody who would say otherwise certainly hasn't been around the tourism industry. So -- not really knowing what the minister means by this: does it demand certain employment standards in the tourism industry? Is that what the minister is getting at? Are we going to set up programs within our educational facilities to further expand on those kinds of things? That could be a positive, and it could be a negative. I think about areas that I represent where people have tremendous difficulty in attending some of the schools or the courses that are presented, because most of them are presented in the lower mainland where the bulk of the people are. It gets very difficult for a business person on the Alaska Highway who runs a business year-round by himself or with a partner. To be able to get out of those areas to come and learn from this process could be difficult, and they could find themselves not being able to certify themselves in a way that would guarantee them continued signage or advertisement, or those kinds of things.
I also understand that there has to be some level of regulation, because it certainly does enhance our business. Second, on that part of the bill we wonder if it's setting up professionalism as another method of encouraging union certification in small tourist-oriented businesses such as motels and tourist attractions. That would certainly have a detrimental effect on many small businesses and many small motel and hotel owners in British Columbia.
The subsection that allows the minister to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions regarding tourist matters is another one that.... In fact, during estimates I spoke to the minister about it at some length. I think it could be very good for the province, especially for the constituency I come from. I can think of many areas of the province that would benefit from agreements made with either the lower 48 states or Alaska, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. My constituency depends heavily on tourism that's destined for Alaska or the Yukon, so I can see agreements reached with these territories and other countries being beneficial to the tourism industry.
I look forward to the committee stage, when we can expound further on that section of the bill to find out exactly what that means. Basically, the bill is not much different from the existing bill. It has some changes. When we get to committee, I guess we'll all have a better idea of how dramatic those changes will be. We look forward to that time.
D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on Bill 14, the Tourism Act. Looking at it from a different point of view, I sometimes wonder what is going on when the minister says that he needs a change of mandate and that he'll be looking into land issues. It appears that when most of the ministries start getting involved with the environment and land issues, they are eventually taken over by the Environment ministry. So it looks like maybe his days are coming near their end, or else he's going to be emasculated again.
In any event, it appears that this is a very inconsequential bill. All items referred to in the second section seem to be somewhat superfluous in the sense that it's collecting, evaluating and disseminating information regarding all "the following" lists. I would assume that by this time the Tourism ministry had reached that point, especially when you look at the fact that he has now increased the Tourism budget by another $12 million or $14 million from last year. It appears that it's up to $126 million; it was $112 million last year.
In any event, I would like to ask the minister, later on when he's closing, if he could answer a few questions with respect to just what it means when he says that Tourism's interest in land and resource management decisions will be. Who is it going to benefit? Just what is it going to be doing? He says it's going to be promoting tourism and reflecting the land use decisions, but will it? Are we just going to close off this province even more from the casual...? We would hope that it would open it up. For example, at the present time there are some glorious areas in this province that are only available to people who have lots of big bucks. Most of the people going into those areas are Americans and Europeans who fly over here and have the big dollars.
For example, does the minister intend to open up the Tatshenshini and put a road through it so it can be accessible to the average person in British Columbia? Does the minister intend to open up the northwest section of British Columbia, which is pretty well restricted to one main road coming down from the Yukon into Jakes Corner or Bob Quinn? For example, when the minister says he's involved in these land use decisions, is he going to widen the road from Highway 37 into Telegraph Creek, and then perhaps drive a road south and through that park and out into Bob Quinn Lake or one of those parts of Highway 37, which will open up the grandest area in this province to the average person instead of leaving it all to the big-dollar spenders?
I'd also like the minister to answer later on whether he has given any attention, when involved in these land use decisions that he's now wanting approval for, to putting a road up the Stikine or up to Iskut, or to opening up a road from the Alaska panhandle and running it up northwest into the Yukon. These are areas in British Columbia that could open up and create tourism in this province instead of, as I said....
[4:30]
L. Fox: The Tatshenshini.
[ Page 13831 ]
D. Jarvis: I said that earlier. Is he going to put a road through the Tatshenshini? Everyone talks about this great area that we are preserving. For whom? We are only preserving it for a very few people -- maybe 1,000 people a year -- who go into the Tatshenshini. They have to fly in there: Americans and some wealthy.... And the odd NDP MLA who's able to fly in there -- certainly we poor Liberals have not been able to fly in there, because we can't afford to, but I notice half the NDP caucus has been flown in there.
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: They haven't got my cheque yet.
As I said, I would really appreciate it if the minister would answer some of those questions as to whether tourism is now going to be a closed shop. Is it now going to be run by the Environment ministry, or is he still going to have control of his own ministry? Every time a ministry gets involved with Environment, they're taken over by Environment -- or at least emasculated.
I'll note those points; I'll end my little talk on Bill 14 and say that I will be supporting it.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to speak on the philosophy and principles of this bill. It's not hard to recognize. Some of the speakers have spoken about British Columbia, and I think our motto, translated from Latin into English, says it all: splendour undiminished. There is virtually no finer jurisdiction anywhere in the world, with all of the values taken into consideration, that a Minister of Tourism could more effectively promote -- where the tourists will get full value for their tourist dollar -- than British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I think we're all agreed on and aware of that, and of the diverse landscapes, from the very high elevations to sea level. The northern tip of the Sonoran Desert ends in Canada; it goes all the way from Mexico into Canada. We have such a tremendous, vital variety and diversity of flora and fauna in the province. The minister is an effective promoter not only in his present role but of -- what is it? -- gold dust or gold trails or something, which he does so well.
In referring to Bill 14, I really can't find anything new in the way of the philosophy or principles when I look at the duties, powers and functions of the minister. I presume that the minister already knows what they are. I can't see anything that is different from the former tourism act. Encouraging development of the tourism industry in British Columbia is a very necessary thing for a Minister of Tourism to do. It's one of those good-news bills that governments often bring forward. It reintroduces existing legislation to make itself look good. It's not looking very good at the present time for a number of various of reasons -- except for the Minister of Tourism; he's always looking good.
What bothers me about the philosophy and principles of this bill is that while it reemphasizes the normal duties of the Minister of Tourism.... The only addition is a note with respect to "...encouraging the development of the motion picture industry in British Columbia." That's a significant opportunity. Economically it's a very sound type of opportunity for British Columbia and British Columbians. However, subsection (2) goes on: "Without limiting subsection (1), the minister may...." It doesn't say that the minister shall or will or anything else; it says he may. He may and he may not. How are we going to debate the philosophy and principles of a bill when the Tourism minister may or may not? We can stand here till all of eternity debating whether he may or may not, whether he will or won't, or whether he should or shouldn't. It's very difficult to relate to the philosophy and principles when all of these options are in there.
The reality is that the Ministry of Tourism and the minister are involved in a number of areas, and he must be involved in them. As a matter of fact, the land use decisions that the minister waxed eloquently on are very important. But the minister -- if he hasn't sat on as chair -- is a member of the cabinet committee ELUC, the Evironment and Land Use Committee. If the minister has been silent on that committee, there is no necessity to bring in new legislation to remind him of what his responsibilities are. He has the mechanism through the cabinet committee and through interministry action to attend to all of the concerns. We don't need this particular bill or this particular piece of legislation to remind the minister of what he should or shouldn't do or what he can or can't do. The reality is that all of the responsibilities indicated here are virtually the present responsibility of the Minister of Tourism. The only official expansion that I can see is with respect to the motion picture industry.
What I'm really concerned about, though, is the unrealistic expectations that may be raised in certain elements of the British Columbia community with respect to the tourism value on land use decisions. We find that here is another potential access to block any growth or development in a particular area.
There are all sorts of funny things that happen in British Columbia. Not too many years ago I was in the Nelson area, standing in small clearcut. One of the radical environmentalists who was with us in that group had his whole day spoiled because off in the horizon, in the far-off distance, was a small postage-stamp clearcut. The fellow was very, very upset, and it just spoiled his whole day: there was a fault in the landscape. We were looking at literally hundreds of square miles from a high vantage point.
The minister knows full well that at the turn of the century there was no green timber on those hills. The prospectors went through. It was easier to prospect on bare slopes, so they just set fires and burned all of the timber. If you look at some of the early pictures of Sandon or of the areas around Nelson, for example, you'll find that the hills were really bare. There were just forests of snags. Now they are green timber. In the short span, a lot of local people -- some long-term and some relatively new to the area -- have decided that since time immemorial green standing timber has been there and it always has been that way. The difficulty is that now we have another element to try and bridge, as lobby forces can go and weight the issue with the Minister of Tourism and perhaps deny the planned and necessary development of the province -- which still primarily is resource extraction industries. Unless we use that as the stepping stone to a new dimension in our economy, then we are going to be fraught with problems.
I had the opportunity of speaking to some 16,000 people at a Stein Valley festival, and most of the people came from the greater Vancouver area. They were quite prepared to insist
[ Page 13832 ]
that government put a moratorium on logging over the whole of the province, because they didn't like what was happening. So we should stop logging, forgetting completely that educational funding, public schools, advanced education, health care funding, social services funding and funding to run the provincial government came, and still comes to a large degree, from the wealth creation of the resource extraction industries.
One has to weigh very carefully the values. We have a great area in this province that has not been impacted in any significant way by the population. It's not simply in the high areas, but if you have travelled or hunted or fished or flown over this province to any degree, you understand the magnitude of the province of British Columbia.
Our parks system is equivalent to or greater than some of the areas of the provinces in Canada; that's what we have here in British Columbia. I have always felt rather badly -- and I felt that the British sold us out -- about the adjudication of the Alaska panhandle, for example. Yet when I fly over British Columbia, I recognize that it's not simply a small area -- and it's not simply moose, mountains and Mounties -- but that there is a great deal of very, very interesting land mass. As far as tourism is concerned -- whether it's consumptive in the way of hunting or fishing, for example, or non-consumptive; whether it's wildlife viewing, river rafting or simply hiking in the high and wild country -- it's all here in British Columbia.
In the philosophy and principles of this bill, it's fundamentally a good-news bill; there's nothing new to it. The minister looks good, and I think so he should, but it does nothing new or dramatic. It's a very interesting bill, but what really bothers me is that it doesn't say anything that is mandatory or definite. Fundamentally, the majority of it all relates to "may," so it's awfully iffy. It sounds like it's a good-news item, but we don't have to do it if we don't feel like it or don't want to.
A. Warnke: I just want to make a few quick remarks about Bill 14. There is no doubt about it, anyone who lives in the province of British Columbia recognizes that tourism is one of the leading industries, if not.... In some ways one could argue -- and I'm sure the minister is quite capable of doing it -- that tourism is the leading industry of British Columbia, certainly in terms of any potential or future in the province.
But the explanatory note does have one magical word -- the member for Okanagan West actually touched on it -- the word "may"; the minister "may" engage in something. I just wanted to touch a little bit on this. It sounds picky, but the problem I always have with the word "may" is that it sometimes turns into the word "will." The minister "will" engage in certain kinds of activities, even though the word "may" suggests an option that is there.
That means then we just take a look at.... Well, this is not a bill just full of options. It's a bill that bears some closer scrutiny perhaps, and I would just like to touch on a couple of aspects. For example, on the plus side, I think first of all of section 1, subsection (2)(b), where it says that what we need is the encouragement of "the enhancement of the standard of accommodation, facilities, tourist services," and so on -- these are absolutely necessary and essential. In fact, the minister has a tremendous responsibility. If we want to enhance and protect the quality of the tourist industry here in British Columbia -- one in which people throughout the rest of the world, and certainly the rest of this continent, can have some sort of predictability -- then when they go into the province of British Columbia, and the government of British Columbia states something such as an accommodation meeting a certain standard, in fact that standard will have been met, and all the rest of it; that is so essential. In the past -- and I do know a little about the tourism industry -- British Columbia has occasionally had the reputation of not meeting the standards of what you would expect from a vibrant tourist industry. So to add this emphasis, I think, is actually quite necessary.
Also, I'm impressed with subsection (2)(d) -- "collect, evaluate and disseminate information regarding the...tourism markets and market potential" and "trends in tourist activities," and so on. This is really long overdue, and as the tourist industry develops, it is so important to identify where in fact the tourist industry is developing and what sort of potential it has. Because I've noticed that the tourist industry in British Columbia -- and elsewhere, to be fair -- has often been the result of boom and bust. That is, all of a sudden a new idea comes forth -- water slides, or something like that -- and it becomes a trendy sort of thing; then everybody wants to be involved in it.
[4:45]
The motel industry several years ago used to be pretty chaotic. It's a result of some people making some money, and then there's a huge response to that: "Hey, we can be part of this as well." Eventually, there is a real problem, and we respond in sort of a boom and bust way. As a result, the economy in the tourist industry fluctuates far more than maybe it should, as opposed to identifying the trends in tourist activities, where there is potential -- perhaps guide entrepreneurs who want to go into the tourist industry; it identifies for them some potential out there. So there are some positives.
But there's one negative, and the member for Peace River North actually put his finger on it -- of course, then he didn't elaborate on it. I won't elaborate too much on it, but when that member pointed to subsection 1(2)(c)(i).... I'm really wondering when we talk about "...enhance the professionalism and job creation potential of the tourism industry by...developing occupational standards and certification processes...." Yes, that sounds good prima facie. Actually, I don't have a quibble with the direction, unless it's a disguise for something -- unless it's a disguise for the ministry. Let's face it, the explanatory note implies that the ministry will be far more involved, may have the opportunity.... Down the road a minister will have the opportunity to really expand an empire in the tourist industry business.
As it is possible -- certainly I would never accuse this minister of that, because I know he is definitely one of the best people in this particular industry, knowing the province as he does and all the rest of it.... I don't mind giving him kudos on that. I'm looking for the bogeyman down the road who might have less noble intentions. And it could be that a minister down the road who wants to develop an empire suggests: "Okay, I'm centralizing more power now in this ministry. I want certain people certified in a certain manner." You see, the pro-certification processes the member for Peace River North alluded to aren't really explicit. I hope it does not include certain kinds of criteria which really do not enhance what I may think of, or what the minister may think of, as the professionalism associated with the tourism industry. Because
[ Page 13833 ]
the wording is a little vague here, it may in fact refer to another kind of professionalism. I don't know -- maybe a member of a trade union or whatever; you never know.
Perhaps at committee stage it would be appropriate to explore this further, in case the minister himself hadn't thought of some latent problems associated with this bill as a result of not really identifying or defining more precisely the professional criteria, some of the certification processes, some of the criteria for certification of these new people, and so on. Perhaps the minister could alleviate some of those concerns in his summary remarks or maybe later on at the committee stage.
One point I would like to follow up on is what the member for Peace River North happened to touch on. I think it's a valid point that he makes....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: As a good Reformer, according to one Reformer. I'm glad to see they stick up for each other.
I wonder, too, whether the hon. minister in his summary remarks couldn't touch on whether this bill will improve such goings-on as spending a quarter of a million dollars on a three-holer somewhere in the southeastern part of British Columbia, between....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Oh, is that what it is? It's quite a significant amount, anyway, for a three-holer. Naturally, this example is going to come up over and over again. I would be reassured if in fact the minister could say yes, Bill 14 will improve the expenditures on such elaborate three-holers throughout the province.
This bill might as well be called the Hollywood North bill. It's no use calling it Disneyland North; some people would suggest that right around here we've got Disneyland North. But to focus attention on the motion picture industry, trying to encourage that industry, is certainly most appropriate. Again, I hope that it's not a response saying that the motion picture industry is developing in British Columbia; let's now really try to get a heavy hand in it. I don't think that. I would be reassured if the minister could maybe say that we're looking enthusiastically toward the development of the motion picture industry, that it's still a bit hands-off, and all the rest of it. If in fact we develop that industry the way I see it going, this is then most welcome.
In summary, I guess that as an opposition member, I'm always concerned: is this bill another contribution to the politics of empire-building? This minister is a good minister; I'm sure he wouldn't want to get involved in the politics of empire-building. I am a little afraid of some of his colleagues, who from time to time, exhibit only too well the politics of empire-building instead of the politics of exhortation. If this really enhances the politics of exhortation, then it's certainly a bill worth responding to.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in my place and speak on the principles of Bill 14, the Tourism Act. Let's say at the outset that we recognize what an impact tourism has on the economy of British Columbia. We recognize that in fact tourism is quickly becoming the second-largest employer in British Columbia, with revenues to match. But when we look at the bill, we see that the major change in the bill is the advocacy role that the minister will have with respect to land use decisions. That could be good or that could be bad, depending on whose values that minister is taking forward.
When we look at tourism we must also not forget the important role that the resource extraction industries play in the economics of British Columbia. In many parts of the province tourism facilities would not be there if it were not for the resource industries -- whether that be hotels, parks in local communities, events which attract people to those communities, or the facilities to look after tourism and capitalize on it moving through. That's a very important fact that we must always consider.
When we look at tourism we must also consider that the province is vast and that there are different aspects to tourism in every region of the province. Many regions of the province are only able to capitalize because of the landscapes or other facilities, and the tourists flowing through their communities and regions. Other areas of the province are destination points, where people come from all over the world in order to enjoy this beautiful province and much of the talent we have within the province.
In saying that, I want to draw the minister's attention to a bit of a paradox. We see an initiative recently for Amtrak -- a Seattle-Vancouver run -- which is achieving a subsidy from the provincial government to get it up and running. Ironically, part of the sale of the usage of that -- part of the promotion package -- is the scenic view you get when travelling to Seattle from Vancouver. At the same time, this government is looking at cutting back the BCR to half of what it normally had during the summer, from Lillooet all the way to Prince George. So there's a bit of a paradox there. Tourism is of value to Vancouver, but it's not of value to the Cariboo or Prince George. I raise this point because it seems to me that we have to have equal values for all of the province.
I'm not standing in my place today suggesting that we should be subsidizing any type of travel in British Columbia. What I am saying is that there's an opportunity to market and put a run together that makes it possible to market it. We have a situation in the BCR where extra cars are put on from Squamish to Lillooet, but after that point they are empty. Why could we not add cars at Vancouver so that we could drop those cars at Lillooet and make seats available for passengers wanting to travel from Vancouver to the Cariboo? It seems to me that we have to learn a lesson from what happened with the CNR, where the CNR has almost self-perpetuated no ridership by its scheduling, lack of flexibility and the removal of stations in the respective communities, to the point where it became extremely awkward -- almost impossible in many rural communities -- to even buy a ticket to ride the train. We've got to work on trying to improve services so that we can capitalize on the opportunities that are before us.
The other issues I want to talk briefly about are the values that the minister may bring forward under this bill and the mechanism that he may use in order to achieve those values. I think it's very important that those values are based on a regional basis, not from downtown Vancouver and not from Victoria -- that indeed we have values around land use in Bulkley Valley, and with this new-found power that the minister will have to advocate those values, that those are the values he pushes for that region of the province. When we
[ Page 13834 ]
deal with the Cariboo, similarly, we and the minister must respect the values of those regions and not just be another tool of the environmental movement in downtown Vancouver to put different values onto those regions, because we recognize how easily that can be done. I know that this minister recognizes the values in those different regions. But one has to be concerned, because this minister, according to the polls today, wouldn't be in that position very much longer, and we might have a minister with different values.
Those are some of the concerns that I have. I look forward to the committee stage, where we can get into the clause-by-clause debate around those issues. I know that the minister will be more than open with us in giving us the correct answers for British Columbia.
J. Sawicki: Like the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove who spoke first to this bill, I too thought I might have a little more time to organize my comments. But, as it may be and as it's turned out, listening to the comments of the opposition, I've scribbled so many little side-notes on the few notes I did have that I'll have to work my way through them.
[5:00]
I think this is an act of very few words; it's only two pages long. I have to share with you, hon. Speaker and members of this House, that when I was speaking to one of the tourism operators about this bill, they said: "Yes, this is an act of very few words. It's very much out of character with the minister who has tabled it." But he said it in good humour, because they truly love their Tourism minister and had lots of good things to say about heightening the awareness of tourism and meeting better the needs of tourism throughout this province, whether it is tourism in downtown Vancouver or tourism in the back country.
The member for Okanagan West suggested that there wasn't anything new in this act. Another member, perhaps the member for Prince George-Omineca, suggested there may be too much new in this act. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour thought maybe they'd use the act to build superhighways into Telegraph Creek or the Tatshenshini. I think that indicates just how little many people understand about the significance of the tourism industry in British Columbia.
It's not a homogeneous industry, by any means. We can hear all the statistics we want about one in nine jobs being tourism-related, and how more than 12,000 businesses are dependent on tourism. That is a really important feature. This act recognizes for the first time that most tourism activities relate very much to super, natural British Columbia. Making sure that those activities can go on in an environment which their customers will enjoy is an extremely important part of this act.
That's why the fact that this act does include -- as part of the duties, powers and functions of the minister -- tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions is such an important addition. That hasn't been the case in previous years. Certainly, I know that many members of the Council of Tourism Associations have been lobbying for this for many, many years. It's only this minister and this government that have recognized that they do have a legitimate place at the table when we're talking about land use issues and resolving land use conflicts.
This will give the tourism operators, whether they are in small communities where they are a significant part of the local economy along with the resource extraction industries and are an important part of that economy.... Whether it's them or whether it's back-country resorts, wilderness fishing camps, heliskiing operations or whatever, whether they attract Americans or British Columbians, it will give them a sense of security and longevity. It will say to them that along with agriculture, along with forestry, along with mining, the tourism industry is a significant part of our economy.
I want to assure the member for North Vancouver-Seymour that you don't have to be rich. You don't even have to be a New Democrat to enjoy these areas. You might need a little bit of stamina. Put a pack on your back and you get to lots of good places in British Columbia. You don't need to have those superhighways.
I want to talk a bit about why it is important to the tourism industry to have a place at the table when talking about land use decisions. It's not just a matter, as some speakers have said,of giving more clout to the environmentalists or preserving more parts of the province. What we're talking about here.... I can tell you from my own personal experience that when you talk to tourism operators, many of them have invested large amounts of dollars into back-country resorts or other facilities, in order to run their businesses. But what they have told me in the past is that they've had no opportunity to have any input, to express their concern over what might happen on the hillsides or the slopes around them. That's what this legislation does.
There is no better demonstration of the kind of quality input that people involved in the wide range of the tourism industry in this province can bring than the role they played in a lot of the CORE tables throughout this province, where I think they earned their stripes. They've known for a lot of years that they need to be at that table, not to stop other things from happening but to work out the consensus and the compromises that have to take place, to work out things where they can coexist peacefully and add to, rather than detract from, the economies of local communities all over this province.
I think that is the gist of my remarks. I will just mention that I know the Council of Tourism Associations has been waiting for this legislation for a long time. I know they were very pleased when our government brought in the back-country recreation policy. This will relieve a lot of anxiety they have had for many years. I know they are also truly looking forward to this minister bringing in the policies, plans and programs that will help them play a significant role in the discussions that go on around this table as we sort out the land use issues before us.
Thank you for letting me speak on this bill. I'm sure that all members will want to support second reading.
D. Mitchell: I certainly couldn't let Bill 14, the new Tourism Act, pass without adding a few comments to this debate.
I think this is an important piece of legislation, and I commend the minister. He certainly has the best job of all members of the executive council of British Columbia, because he is the Minister of Tourism and he is also the Minister of Small Business and Culture. But certainly, to be the Minister of Tourism in British Columbia must be not only the best job in British Columbia but one of the best jobs in the world, I would hazard to guess.
[ Page 13835 ]
Tourism is growing exponentially, faster than any other portion of our economy. My only wish for this minister is that this new bill, Bill 14, might provide some additional powers that would allow a significant portion of the revenues derived from tourism to be spent by his ministry every year to help the industry grow even faster and to provide an even firmer foundation for it.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: "Formula funding," the minister says. That's exactly what I'm getting at. I'll make some comments about that in a moment.
But first I'd like to ask why we have Bill 14, the new Tourism Act. Because this bill repeals the old tourism act, this bill is substantially the same as the old one. There really aren't a significant number of big changes. There is one very important change under the clarification of duties, powers and functions which provides for "...reflecting tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions." It is a major change, but it's the only change. Is that change required at this time? Was it necessary to throw out the whole act and bring in a new act simply to bring in this change? Or could the minister have brought the tourism interest to the table in land use planning processes without this legislative change?
I'm not opposing the bill, by any means. In fact, I strongly support the earlier comments of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I think it's useful for tourism interests to be at the table, and tourism is so important to the expanding economy of British Columbia that it should be at the table. But one of the things we have to be sensitive to -- and I'm sure the minister is -- is that by adding an extra interest to the local tables, when it comes to land use planning in any region of the province we want to make sure we're not making those tables more complex, because we know that there's already a diversity of interests represented in any land use planning process. Tourism should be at the table. But how can we ensure that tourism interests are represented there without making land use planning even more complex than it is today? Are we adding an element of inertia into a system where change, in terms of land use processes, is needed in the province?
We need to reflect the tourism interests of the province, and this bill does that with this one major change. But the bill does some other things as well that I think we should talk about, because it tries to clarify the duties, powers and functions of the minister. It sets up a bit of a vision for tourism in the province -- a vision that I think this minister has espoused ever since he assumed his portfolio. That vision is fairly clear, but there's a discretionary portion of his vision. Earlier in the debate some other members referred to the fact that the minister may "develop policies," "encourage the enhancement," "enhance the professionalism" -- it goes on and on for several sections. These are completely discretionary. I wonder, and I have to ask the minister, whether should be discretionary or whether they should be obligatory. A Ministry of Tourism, as constituted in the province of British Columbia today, should have some obligations to fulfil those functions, rather than simply leaving them to the discretion of the government of the day -- of the minister who happens to hold office.
I'll use just one example. Let's take a look at section 1(2)(c), which says that the minister "may enhance the professionalism and job creation potential of the tourism industry in British Columbia by (i) developing occupational standards and certification processes...." -- and it goes on. What it's really talking about is training in the industry, and there is a need for training in the tourist industry in British Columbia: restaurants, the hospitality industry generally -- hotels, etc. We want to provide the very best experience for visitors to the province so they will come back and will tell their family and friends to come to British Columbia as well. Of course, we have wonderful attractions here, and the minister is building upon the efforts of previous ministers of tourism over the last generation. But we're now at a point where the economy is truly diversifying and tourism is really coming into its own. So shouldn't we have training standardization and certification? Shouldn't we have some kind of processes in place that guarantee at least a minimum level of professionalism?
During a briefing on this bill, when I asked the ministry officials why this was discretionary, they pointed out -- quite rightly, I think -- that given the fiscal situation, there needs to be some flexibility to address this from year to year. That's where I get back to the issue of formula funding. If we really have to leave such important issues in perhaps the most important industry in British Columbia up to the vagaries of the business cycle and fiscal responsibilities and what one minister may or may not be able to achieve at Treasury Board, then what are we really saying about the province's commitment to the most important emerging industry in the province?
I know the minister is familiar with a brief by the Southwestern B.C. Tourist Association, which deals with a proposal for formula funding. This proposal says we know that in British Columbia we are dependent on the annual budgetary process. Because tourism is becoming the leading economic generator, could we see funding allocated on a formula basis whereby, for instance, one-half of 1 percent of the gross annual tourism revenues in the province would be at least funnelled into this ministry? It's a small ministry; it's a modest ministry, by the minister's own definition; and yet it's a very important one. So could we not see some formula funding? I would appreciate the minister's comments on that, perhaps when he closes debate. Or if he doesn't, certainly when we get to committee stage I'd like to ask him about this.
Perhaps it's time to stabilize the level of commitment of resources from the provincial government to this very important industry, which I think is reflected in this act. I think the act does recognize the importance of tourism to the province. But by leaving so many of the key and vital functions of tourist promotion and standards within the industry up to the discretion of any future minister, any future government and any future fiscal cycle or condition, we're really not showing the kind of commitment to tourism that I think we need to reflect.
Bill 14, the new Tourism Act, talks about the duties, powers and functions of the minister. I wonder if the minister, with this new act, is going to have a greater ability -- assuming that we can pass this bill quickly through this House -- to help in the current battle to get the new federal office of the Canadian Tourism Commission established right here in British Columbia?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm working on it right now.
[5:15]
D. Mitchell: The minister says he's working on it right now. My question to him is: will this bill, the new Tourism Act,
[ Page 13836 ]
enhance his ability and his ministry's ability to get this new $50 million office, the Canadian Tourism Commission office -- which was announced by the federal government, by the Prime Minister of Canada, at a conference late last year in Vancouver -- established right here in the province of British Columbia -- ideally, I think, in the city of Vancouver? What better city, what better location in Canada would there be to reflect the growing emergence of tourism as an economic generator, positioned right here on the Pacific Rim? It is a major tourism region that's opening up. Now there's a proposal to establish this Canadian Tourism Commission office. There are a number of people in the private sector right here in British Columbia who are lobbying very hard, and the minister is well aware of their efforts, to get that centre established here -- not just in Toronto, because that's where all the Liberal seats are; not just in Quebec to placate the potential separatists, because we know that buying them off doesn't work, as generations have told us; not in some pork-barrel riding where some cabinet minister wants to get it directed, but in a place where there's some economic logic -- in Vancouver, right on the Pacific Rim, right in the area of the greatest economic boom in the tourism markets of the world, and in a province where tourism really is taking shape and where tourism contributes more than anywhere else in Canada. Certainly that has to be supported. I'd like to know if this minister is supporting those efforts. I'd like to know if Bill 14 is going to enhance his ability to help us get that $50-million-a-year office right here in our province, with 50 permanent jobs. That's going to be a tremendous benefit, and I think we'd do well for all of Canada to have that office located in our province.
The minister has been doing some great things in recent days, and I commend him. He announced just last week a major partnership between Tourism B.C. and American Express. This was an interesting announcement -- talk about capitalism running wild and free in the province of British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, can you think back to the last election, when the Premier in a famous televised debate with the leaders of the other parties held up his American Express card? He said, "You won't need this American Express card here in British Columbia," and then he held up another card. There's some irony that today the government led by the same leader, by the Premier, is now embracing American Express. I think it's great that we're forging those kinds of partnerships with the private sector, and I commend the minister for this.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member for Skeena says that you can't use it for medicare. No, but you can use it to promote tourism, and maybe that's not bad. Maybe those are the kinds of partnerships we should be thinking about. But there is a bit of irony there, and I know the member for Skeena will appreciate what I'm saying.
The bill is an important bill. But when we talk about the fact that there's not a steady commitment to training in the industry, although the minister may support it, he's not obliged to. I have to ask him another question: is there not room today in legislation, perhaps, for a code of ethics in the tourism industry? This is a proposal that's come forward from various groups from time to time. A code of ethics, so that anybody working in the hospitality industry in British Columbia will live up to that code....
Hon. B. Barlee: Restaurants especially.
D. Mitchell: Restaurants especially, as the minister says, but anyone who works in hotels....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Well, there are other suggestions that are coming forward in this debate, and I encourage other members, like the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, to get up and talk about a fair exchange rate. That would certainly help.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The minister says we're already doing it. So we're making more progress.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: I'm learning more about this all the time.
But what I was referring to was the code of ethics. Is there not a place in this bill for a code of ethics about the delivery of tourism and the tourism product that we're selling here in British Columbia -- in other words, some kind of commitment for operators to give fair value for foreign currency? That's an exchange-rate issue as well.
We talk about a new tourism act. This provides the rationale for why we have a Ministry of Tourism in the province. It's an important ministry. The minister is very modest when he describes its goal and function; but there could well be in the 1990s, as we approach the new millennium, no more important ministry in the province of British Columbia. I actually think the bill could go further in a number of areas. I look forward to the minister addressing these.
I have one other concern that was brought to my attention. While Bill 14 addresses a number of areas that I don't think any British Columbian could object to, there isn't any prioritization of these. How much time will the minister and the ministry staff spend on any of these areas? Of course, that's up to the discretion and the management of the ministry. But take a look at the key change in the bill, under section 1(1)(d), to reflect "tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions." This is the key change. In fact, it's the only change of substance from the previous act. The question is: will the minister be adding staff functions to this responsibility? Regarding his new budget that has recently been passed in this Legislature -- which has been reviewed -- we need to know if in that budget the new change under duties, powers and functions reflecting tourism interests in land use.... Will there be major commitment of staff and functions and financial resources in this ministry to deal with this new change? This is a significant change in this bill, and we should find that out. I have no doubt that we will find out when we get to committee stage, but the minister might speed that up a little when he closes debate, if he can answer those questions.
Thank you, hon. Speaker. I extend my compliments to the minister on the new Tourism Act.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 14, the Tourism Act. As the critic for Lands and Parks, I've had occasions in the past during the minister's estimates to talk about the importance of tenure in the back-country recreation and wilderness tourism industry. I really do look forward
[ Page 13837 ]
to committee stage on section 1, in which we determine exactly what the minister means when we build in the reflection of tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions. Clearly, if there has been one portion of the debate which I think has been missing in the environment and land use debate in this province, it's a recognition that with respect to wilderness tourism, there really needs to be a total revamp and rethink of the whole tenure system in the province. By this licensing system, operators of back-country recreation proposals and guide-outfitters -- who, I think, have tremendous potential in the province to provide greater tourism services -- find themselves at times in a state of frustration in dealing with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I'm sure the minister, who is an advocate of tourism in the province, must be disappointed -- very disappointed -- at the state of the back-country recreation industry in British Columbia, and the fact that we have seen such a bottleneck in Crown lands. As a former representative of the mining sector -- the placer mining sector, I understand -- he must be extremely concerned about the kinds of bottlenecks that are occurring on Crown lands. I look forward to the fact that, as the minister responsible, he now has under this bill -- or we hope will have -- an opportunity to really press the interests of the back-country tourism industry in our province.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
I can't let pass subsection (e) under 1(1) -- which we'll also get a chance to deal with -- on tourism, which talks about the motion picture industry in the province of British Columbia. The minister will know that that industry has recently been very vocal about the labour climate in the province of British Columbia, and about the tax structure and tax regime. As a spokesman for that industry, I look forward to him going against some of his colleagues on the other side of the House, particularly the Minister of Finance, when it comes to taxes on that industry and on industry generally. Very recently, the motion picture industry had a lot to say about the federal budget and about the provincial budget. It will be refreshing, under this bill, to have a Minister of Tourism who will recognize the regulatory quagmire, the tax structure, that even as I speak is acting as a deterrent to this industry expanding its operations in British Columbia. So I really believe that as the minister responsible for this important new economic generator for the province -- which tourism is -- he will become an advocate for fairer taxation in the province and perhaps for fairer labour relations in the province as it impacts on this industry. I look forward to really looking closely at (d) and (e) in committee stage. There's such a body of information out there with respect to what's going right and, more importantly, what's going wrong in the province.
I hope that the wilderness tourism area particularly is one that this new bill will provide the minister an opportunity to be a real spokesperson for, even to the point of perhaps criticizing Crown Lands on occasion when developmental bottlenecks occur that discourage good entrepreneurs in the province from borrowing money and investing in the land base in B.C. to really build the wilderness tourism potential.
So with those few remarks, hon. Chair, I look forward to committee stage debate on this bill, and I know that we'll have a lively debate, particularly on (d) and (e) in section l.
Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture closes debate.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll save most of my remarks for committee stage, which I think is more appropriate. I will address a few of the comments and concerns of the combined opposition. I notice that there were nine or ten speakers on this: my colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, of course; the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who is his usual eloquent self; the member for Okanagan West, an old friend of mine, as it happens; the member for Surrey-White Rock, who brought up several interesting concerns; the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who is still here; the House Leader from Fort Langley-Aldergrove; the member for Richmond-Steveston; and the two Reform members for Prince George-Omineca and Peace River North. So we've had a rather interesting dissertation on it, and I think it's basically a good act, as you probably have guessed before now.
I should address a few things, however. First of all, the various members made various points, and I think all of us are in agreement that British Columbia is a glorious province. There's not much doubt about that at all. When the UN named Canada the finest country in the world.... Well, it's obvious that British Columbia is the finest province in Canada, so that puts us in a rather select sort of crew.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Indeed we do.
One of the members mentioned that he would go around the province and spend the rest of his holidays seeking out the various places he has not been. He would spend several hundred years doing that, and I don't think we'll be here in several hundred years.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
As far as formula funding is concerned, it's very important, of course. Certain jurisdictions follow this. I do not like formula funding for the industry as a whole. For instance, with $6.3 billion, if you gave formula funding of 1 1/2 percent, it would be gargantuan; it would be about $95 million, doing that mathematically. We will never get that. I do, however, think that 1 1/2 percent of formula funding on the increase in revenue keeps a ministry on its toes. Therefore, we came up with $472 million this year; 1 1/2 percent of that would be very close to $7 million, and that would be about right. That $7 million would probably bring in another -- say it's 100 to 1 -- $700 million. About $100 million would go back to the Crown, and the other $600 million would go back to entrepreneurs around the province.
As for my balance, certainly in section (1)(d), where it says, "reflecting tourism interests in land and resource use," I have kind of an interesting background. My family were essentially North West Mounted Police. The older family, going back several generations, were Hudson's Bay factors and cattlemen.
D. Jarvis: Uncle Billy was a cattleman.
Hon. B. Barlee: Uncle Billy was a cattleman -- that's correct.
D. Jarvis: He was a developer.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, a little bit. Of course, I have kind of an interesting background in that I'm a professional miner and a writer and an entrepreneur, which is kind of fun.
[ Page 13838 ]
I won't go into all of this, but I should mention a couple of things. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who's the House Leader.... I think I would disagree with him when he says there should be a tendency, a trend, towards privatization of this ministry. I don't think so. This ministry is a cash cow, and you don't fool with a cash cow. This ministry, for a very little bit of money -- $126 million -- brought in about $6.3 billion last year. That's up almost half a billion dollars over the year before, with very little increase.... The only increase was $5 million. Out of that $5 million, we brought in $472 million in new money. Out of that $472 million, the Crown got $70 million; but the entrepreneurs got $402 million.
The difference there is that if you let the private concerns do it, they tend to concentrate on the major players. We as government concentrate on some of the emerging players and the trends that are taking place in the industry. Some of those emerging players don't have a large enough voice at the table when it comes to funding. That would be directed probably towards the major players in British Columbia, and there are probably 15 or 20 of them. But we have to consider all of the 12,000 to 14,000 businesses that are engaged in the tourism industry. Generic advertising is certainly a very important part of it.
As far as the motion picture industry is concerned -- one of the members mentioned this just briefly -- it jumped dramatically from $283 million in 1993 to $402 million last year. I see that going up continually. There are problems there, which we are resolving, but it's a slow sort of process.
I must admit -- and I'll probably mention this in committee stage -- that we led the country in tourism revenue growth last year by far. Alberta was a distant second, and they will stay a distant second this year. The Conference Board of Canada made that statement, and they are certainly not social democrats. They say we will also lead the country in 1995.
[5:30]
Of course, we have marvellous partners; you mentioned American Express. We used to give some of these programs away; certainly we gave the SuperHost program away years ago to all sorts of people who wanted it. Now they have to pay for it. American Express is giving us $100,000, cash on the barrelhead, plus about half a million dollars' worth of information they have in their file, which will serve British Columbia extremely well. We've been negotiating with them for a number of months, and finally drove what I consider to be a pretty good bargain.
An Hon. Member: Don't leave home without it.
Hon. B. Barlee: Don't leave home without it. That's very true.
During committee stage I will address a number of concerns. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour mentioned the Stikine. I am quite familiar with the Stikine; my family was there in the 1890s. I'll elaborate on that -- probably when we get into committee stage. I thank all members for their contributions to this rather interesting and, I think, kind of evenhanded debate. On that basis, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14.
Motion approved.
Bill 14, Tourism Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. B. Barlee: I call second reading of Bill 12.
ARTS COUNCIL ACT
(second reading)
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a pleasure to rise and introduce debate on second reading of the Arts Council Act -- which, by the way, is somewhat larger than the last act. The passage of this bill will meet a longstanding request by our province's artistic and cultural community. In fact, it is a request of several decades. The province first began funding the arts through the Centennial cultural assistance fund in 1967, almost 30 years ago. This calls for the establishment of an arm's-length arts agency, to begin almost immediately. That's the operative phrase: an arm's-length arts agency.
The fundamental argument for the arm's-length approach is that decisions on which artistic activities should be funded are best made by an independent body supported by expert advice from the artistic community. In this way, the arts community is assured that decisions are free of censorship and are being made with a view to the best interests of the arts, first and foremost. In adopting this approach, we are not breaking any new ground. This bill simply brings us into step with other Canadian provinces and with the federal government. The establishment of an independent agency has been recommended by the present B.C. Arts Board, the Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist and the Assembly of B.C. Arts Councils.
In bringing this legislation forward, I want to pay tribute to the members of the British Columbia Arts Board, past and present. Since it was established in 1974, about 21 years ago, B.C. Arts Board members have been unswerving in their advocacy for the arts in British Columbia. This has been a rather thankless task in many instances, but they have persevered. The progress we have made this year in strengthening our investment in the arts and culture is largely due to their advocacy. To the Arts Board chair, Pat Mugridge, and all of her colleagues, I thank them for a job extremely well done.
This bill will not establish another level of bureaucracy. The Arts Council will simply replace the existing B.C. Arts Board, and it will receive staff support from existing ministry personnel. This is the same arrangement which has worked well for the B.C. Heritage Trust, which is supported by the heritage conservation branch. If the B.C. Arts Council were to hire its own staff, with its own administrative supports, accounting systems, computer systems, office space and so on, there would be significant added costs. Right now we have the lowest administrative overhead of any province in Canada with respect to arts funding and culture. Ours runs at about, I think, 5.6 percent or 5.7 percent. Most of the other provinces -- I think all of them -- are over 10 percent and sometimes up to 20 percent, which I think is too high. So we want to keep it down to that level. There will be some additional costs, in the order of $100,000 to $200,000, to enable the council to carry out its existing expanded mandate. I anticipate that the council will be more active than the existing board and will need resources to establish an independent voice in the arts community -- the community as a whole, in fact.
We've also decided that it is appropriate to begin to pay honorariums to council members. Some of you may have questions about that, and I'll tell you why. At present, board members receive only expenses. This has worked, I think,
[ Page 13839 ]
against the participation of the working artist. We do need working artists at the table, and we don't believe they should suffer a financial hardship to be there. Some of them have suffered enough financial hardships, and we all know about financial hardships.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll debate that in committee stage quite gladly.
So government will continue to have an interest in the arts and culture which are outside the scope of the new Arts Council. My ministry will continue to directly administer programs in support of cultural industries such as film and publishing, which have economic dimensions beyond the scope of the Arts Council. Those are more or less allied -- tied together but still beyond it. The ministry will also continue to be responsible for relations with Canada and other levels of government -- for instance, Alberta.
We will be entering into a multi-year memorandum of understanding with the new Arts Council to set out the policy framework and the goals of our government. This will ensure that there is stability and continuity as we move into that new relationship. Groups such as community arts councils do not need to feel their support is at risk; in fact, there will be enhanced funding for community development. Within the fiscal and policy framework we will negotiate with the Arts Council, it will have full authority to determine individual grants. That's quite important. Several members have been concerned about that.
Other members on both sides of the House who have had responsibility for culture in the past will, I know, concur that the British Columbia Arts Board has done an excellent job and that the board has enjoyed a high measure of independence. Indeed, this legislation is being brought forward at their specific urging. What this legislation does for the first time is give a clear legislative base for the work of the new Arts Council and a mandate for it to act as an advocate for the cultural sector generally. I fully expect that in exercising their role as advocates, there will be more than a few occasions when they will take me or some future minister to task. In fact, knowing the arts community, that is a foregone acceptance.
Members of the new Arts Council will be chosen to represent both the regions of the province and the full range of artistic activities.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I will give you a copy of this if you wish. Actually, there have been amendments suggested -- and that kind of touches on it, to be quite candid.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: We want to hear from qualified persons -- qualified, I say -- who are interested in serving. I would urge all members to make this opportunity known to individuals in your respective communities, by the way.
In closing, I believe this legislation is a step forward for the arts in British Columbia and does merit the support of all members. [Applause.]
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice the backbenchers in the New Democratic caucus applauding at the brevity of that last speech. I think it must go on record as one of the shortest the minister has ever given. They've been in caucus; I haven't. But I can just imagine how long some of them have gone on, having been in estimates sometimes.
I want to say a few words about the act in place of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the critic who is unavailable today to speak to it. I have talked to him and others about it, and I would like to convey some of his comments to the minister.
My understanding is that the arts community has been coming to this government and other governments for some time looking for two things: the appointment of an arts council that would be able to dole out the various grants to the community groups, the arts and cultural groups, to make sure they were dealt with in a fair manner; the other side, the other thing they were looking for, importantly -- and I think it is significant and is something the government has missed the mark on in this bill -- is independence. They were looking for independence from the minister and the ministry in order to ensure that the decisions about who got grants and who didn't, that the funding that went to whomever, would not be at the behest of the minister or the ministry and not subject to the political whims that sometimes blow through this House and across the province.
I think the minister has half the job right. He's established a council, and he has acceded to the request of the arts and cultural community for a council to be set up that does all the things the minister talked about. But I think he has fallen down with regard to ensuring that that group is independent. The bill says the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is generally the cabinet and the minister, will be appointing the members of the council -- up to 15 of them. But it goes further. It appoints or selects which of those people is going to be the chair. It goes further yet and decides who's going to be the vice-chair.
I think that if we could select 15 top-notch, quality people from around the province who have a good, solid background in the arts and cultural communities, they among themselves could choose someone who would best represent them as a chair and a vice-chair. You know, it may not be a significant change in the bill, and the minister doesn't seem to be upset about it. Perhaps he'd accept an amendment in committee stage to give them that ability. I don't think it would be too difficult to put through.
One other aspect that again ensures that the independence the community is looking for isn't in the legislation or won't actually take place is that all the staff people who are actually going to be doing the work for the council are coming from the ministry. This minister, I don't doubt for a minute, would be loathe to involve himself in determining where the funds went, holding those board members' strings and telling them what to do. But he's probably not the last minister of culture and arts that this province is ever going to see. We always have to ensure when we draft legislation that we don't draft it for a particular minister, or even a particular government, but for the long term.
I recall -- it wasn't too long ago in this House, when we had a previous minister -- that the government actually had a grant program in place for visual artists in British Columbia who were awarded grant money provided that their work celebrated the workers of B.C. I don't know if the minister remembers that debate. That one was at about the time the
[ Page 13840 ]
Soviet Union was collapsing, and there were about forty 60-foot statues of Lenin we could have bought real cheap. We wouldn't have had to build them at home.
It raises an issue: it's that governments, and this government included, aren't.... It's not beyond the realm of possibility for a government to say: "These are the political objectives we want to be achieved with this cultural grant or this arts grant." The minister shrugs his shoulders, but it happened not too long ago. It wasn't this minister; it was the previous minister -- the same government, though. I think it's the type of thing we have to watch out for.
Those grants should be dealt with independently. They should be done in an equitable fashion across the various types of arts and cultural groups that are out there, so that they are spread evenly and don't all go to the painters, to the dancers or whichever.
In order to ensure that that happens, I think it's important we let these people be somewhat independent. That's the only concern we have with the bill: we think that it's sort of halfway there. The first half is fine; in the second half the independence doesn't appear to be there. It leaves a couple of questions unanswered. There are some questions that the member from Saanich would like the minister to address, perhaps in summing up or in committee stage. We're wondering if there is a mandate for the council to guarantee equity across the province. Is there provision for the council to undertake some long-range planning and budget for it over an extended period of time? How will the council members be chosen? Is it going to be just government? The minister made some allusions to all members of the House putting forward suggestions, and he may well accept that. I'm not sure that the next minister will be, or that the previous minister would have been, as willing. But that's another question. Also, how long will the appointments be? Are they for a year, five years or two years? That would be something we'd be looking for.
[5:45]
The minister did clear up one area, which is if and how members are going to be paid -- with an honorarium. I'd like to know how much that honorarium is. Sometimes those $80,000 honoraria for a year can be outrageous. I don't expect that to be the case here, but it would be nice to know what that dollar figure is.
In closing, I'd like to thank the minister for his sketch, and I wait for him to paint the canvas.
D. Mitchell: I'd just like to add a few comments about Bill 12, the Arts Council Act. I will be supporting this bill, and I think members should support this bill.
The minister has indicated that there has been a process of consultation, and we know that the arts community and arts groups throughout the province have been wanting more support -- pleading, really -- for a number of years. We're now starting to finally see the arts community receive that support, but it would be interesting, perhaps in committee stage when we get to it, if the minister could give us some indication of the kinds of comments and input he has received in the consultation process for this legislation, both positive and negative. I would imagine it's mostly positive, but it would be interesting to see some of the negative comments as well. I'll certainly be asking the minister for that documentation in committee stage, because I think it's useful to put that on the record.
One of the comments that was made in the Vancouver media last week, in the Georgia Straight newspaper, by Lori Baxter, the executive director of the Vancouver Cultural Alliance, was a concern that this new agency that's going to be created by Bill 12 should not create a bureaucracy whose administration costs take money away from arts and cultural groups. The minister has tried to address that in his second reading comments today. He tried to address that -- and he has gone part way to addressing that -- by saying that one of the ways not to take up all the money in bureaucracy is to use the staff in his own ministry. But then that raises a concern, as I think the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove correctly stated, about the independence of this agency. The minister himself has gone a long way towards talking about the independence of this new Arts Council -- that it is going to be an independent body. But how can the body be truly independent when it relies for its staffing, its direction and its support services on the ministerial staff, which receives, quite frankly, political direction from the minister of the day -- whoever that minister is? So it raises some serious concerns about how independent this new body will be. Cost-effectiveness is a concern. I think the minister has tried to address the cost-effectiveness question, but he has raised at the same time other serious doubts about the true independence. So I think the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is correct, in the sense that the bill goes halfway; it addresses some of the concerns, but it raises questions that beg to be answered, and during committee stage we will want to know a little more about this.
The question of honorariums, I think, is one that should be supported. Up until now, the minister points out that working artists have had to donate their time. We know that, as it is, working artists are subsidizing the cultural industries under very difficult and challenging circumstances and means for survival. So I think we can support honorariums, but I think the minister should indicate what those honorariums should be, what ranges are being contemplated. We'll ask that as well in committee stage.
But the bill before us, Bill 12, fails to address the makeup of the board between the artist and the non-artist. I think this is something that the bill should address specifically, and since it doesn't, we are going to have to find out more about this as well. If the board is composed strictly of artists, will it reflect the public interest? On the other hand, if the board is balanced the wrong way, by having not enough people who are familiar intimately with the cultural industries of the province, it may not serve the intention of the legislation as well. So the balance of those directors who are going to be serving on the board -- the balance between artist and non-artist -- is a crucial issue that I'm hoping the minister can address.
The other thing that the bill is missing -- and I think it would be appropriate for this legislation to contain it -- is some kind of a mission statement, or even a business plan, for this new Arts Council. Because that isn't explicitly addressed in the bill, I wonder if the minister might be able to comment as well as to whether or not there is going to be a requirement for this new Arts Council to have a mission statement or business plan approved -- perhaps by cabinet through order-in council, but preferably by the Legislature. I think that would be the appropriate way to go. Before any money is spent by this new arm's-length independent council, I think there should be a business plan and a mission statement that could be approved in principle by this Legislative Assembly.
[ Page 13841 ]
That's the reason we're here, and that's the reason we're being asked to support this legislation. I think it's lacking in the bill.
Otherwise, I don't want to prolong my comments this afternoon. I'll save the rest of my comments for committee stage. I would like to say, though, that I think the attempt to provide some kind of legislative foundation for what this year will be a $60 million commitment in art-spending by the minister is worthwhile. But the Legislature should not be giving away all control and all rights of approval for this process.
K. Jones: There are a couple of short items I'd like to address with this bill. There is the lack of identification of equity in the bill. The bill does not address the relationship between the large arts organizations of greater Vancouver and Victoria versus the small community arts councils, the small community arts clubs and organizations that operate in the local communities.
How, I ask of the minister, does this address the very large inequity in political power or clout between these two organizations? There are the larger organizations such as the opera, the symphony and the dance groups -- professional groups in Vancouver and Victoria which have paid staff, paid directors and artistic conductors and artistic directors -- versus those in the communities, which are maybe a group of volunteers who have got together and coordinated a program, or a club that meets on a regular basis to put on a few plays or concerts.
How does that equity relationship get addressed? In this bill, the way it's written right now, I don't believe it's addressed at all, hon. minister. I certainly think that's important in being able to make this into a fair and equitable piece of legislation.
There's also the question of the relationship between the professional artist and the amateur artist. Naturally, professional artists have much more clout because they have an income. They have the ability to lobby or to have hired people state their case, whereas the amateur artist, the beginning artist, doesn't really have that ability to put their needs across in trying to get adequate sharing of a very limited resource. And I'm sure that this limited resource has to be one that's not just going to be government funded. It's going to have to have outside funding coordinated through these councils, therefore there will be various polls to determine which way that money would be delivered. There may be such things as Ford giving a donation, provided it goes to the Ford Theatre. That is going to make this council much like the original human resources boards, where they had a very small amount of money, a very large demand and an almost impossible situation of trying to determine who should get what, on a fair and equitable basis. That is the concern I hope the minister will see fit to address, and maybe he'll bring forward some modifications to this legislation that will allow a better defining of the roles to provide equity for all people.
Hon. B. Barlee: I won't spend a long time closing debate, because I think we should address most of these concerns in committee stage, but I would say one thing. Most of you are worried about administration costs. I mentioned in the preamble that our administration costs are the lowest in Canada by far, at about 5.4 percent of the cost of running this committee; the other 94.3 percent goes directly into the arts community.
I thank all members for their contributions, and I now move second reading of Bill 12.
Motion approved.
Bill 12, Arts Council Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:36 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
A. Warnke: I believe I was going to make a few remarks last Thursday when the bells rang, and I adjourned. Actually I'm somewhat thankful to whoever was responsible for ringing the false alarm; it came at a good time. What I would like to do, rather than just ask a question -- conforming, obviously, to the standing orders and all the rest of it.... I think it's appropriate that I provide some sort of quick background for the minister's benefit.
As the minister well knows, the city of Richmond contains considerable controversy with regard to Richmond schools. I'm sure my colleagues will have some comments on that as well, but I think it's appropriate here to address the debate, because a lot has been written in the Richmond press that actually indicates that the issue may be getting out of hand.
Obviously, there's some politics involved. There is nothing new or strange about that. But what is a little bit disconcerting is that, perhaps as a result of some political discussion not exclusive to the two parties -- the Liberal Party and the New Democrats represented by the ministry -- in this particular case, some other politics enters into this, as well. As a result, what we are seeing, perhaps, is a bit of a distortion of the issues. I think it's necessary to get back on track of the essence of the issue in Richmond.
Maybe one could say at the outset that the minister has some correct statements insofar as the budget that the New Democratic government inherited from the previous Social Credit administration was a profound factor shackling the
[ Page 13842 ]
fiscal and budgetary policies of any successive government. This was reflected, obviously, in the issues of deficit and debt and so on. Even if we were to have formed government in 1991, I think we would have been faced with similar difficulties. I know this because I was our party's Finance critic in 1991. We recognized many of the problems the present government faced in 1991.
Having said that, perhaps at some other forum I wouldn't mind elaborating on some of the legacies of Conservative governments, Social Credit governments and all the rest of it. But I say this at the outset, because some of the debate obviously revolves around the question: what do we do with the whole question of deficits and debt?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
I'm afraid what has been projected is a view that obviously, if one is trying to get their priorities straight in terms of what policies have to be administered best on behalf of the people of British Columbia.... We all know that health, education and social services put together -- just those three ministries -- make up three-quarters of the provincial budget. We also know that education is the primary responsibility of the province, therefore a primary objective of the provincial government is to deal with provincial matters.
Unfortunately, the debate has been somewhat skewed by suggesting that on the one hand we need to address the priorities and the primary responsibilities of provincial governments, and that this may in fact mean allocating appropriate financial and budgetary sources to the funding of education. Then, of course, once politics enters into it -- partisan politics -- the other side of the coin is that if one is in favour of increasing expenditures in a particular field, will that be at the expense of something else? What is it?
We've said plenty of times on this side of the House that certainly.... I think all three Richmond MLAs have made it very clear; maybe my colleagues will elaborate on this. But speaking for myself, I've certainly made it clear, and my colleagues have made it clear, that never, ever did we say that we are against the construction of new schools or that we are against any new projects in Richmond.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Well, hon. Chair, this is estimates debate, and here again we hear from some members of the government still engaging in this bogeyman exercise -- what I would call a strawman technique -- and methodology. At least the minister is not doing that, because I know he is an honourable man.
The fact is that this is the basis of the debate, and we've made it very clear that we're certainly not against the construction of new schools and that sort of thing. In fact, as I go back through the record all the way to the original statements made on April 9, 1992 -- and I won't belabour the point -- the fact is that my colleagues and I have clearly addressed some of the problems. We have gotten some interesting answers from the past that impose not only on the minister's priorities, I believe, for the past year, but especially for this coming year and the year after.
For example, the former Minister of Education, in response to a question that I put forward on April 9, 1992, said: "I think the important point that I want to make and emphasize again is that the ministry, in very close cooperation with school districts, has developed a five-year plan." And what is in that five-year plan? Again, the minister made reference to it. "We've got a five-year window, and it's our hope that we're able to proceed with good planning over that five years, we will see most of that backlog taken care of."
That was 1992. We are approaching that five-year period in 1997, and what was that backlog? The backlog involved dealing with the portables question and dealing with the sad state of the schools. Presumably, as a result of that commitment made then, we will see a heck of a lot of progress in 1997, because in April 1992 the then minister referred to the decay of our buildings, referred to portables and all the rest of it.
[2:45]
In fact, the minister of that year also said: "This budget also addresses a present need to invest in classroom upgrading, building maintenance and new schools. Rapid growth in many of the urban areas of our province and the pattern of capital underfunding over the last decade have run down our older schools. We have developed an all-too-visible reliance on portable classrooms. If we travel around the province, the visual evidence is quite staggering. As a result, the minister then said: "Oh, I'm very pleased to announce the capital budget for school districts next year that will finance renovation of existing facilities to replace those portable classrooms with additions and design and construct new schools." That's a direct quote of the debate in 1992.
As a result, I think it was very clear that the minister of this government, who preceded the present minister, had made that kind of commitment. When you hear that kind of commitment that's exactly what I and my colleagues in Richmond have really stuck to. This is what we're pointing out to the minister.
I put it in this context, therefore. When we're dealing with the present situation of schools in Richmond -- my colleagues, I'm sure, can comment on the impact of the government policies in their constituencies -- I can say that in the constituency of Richmond-Steveston we've been pleased at the progress that was being made. As the minister is aware, and indeed the previous minister is aware, London school had a terrific fire, a horrible fire. Thank goodness that given some anxiety which began with the previous minister, at least this minister has responded accordingly.
The present minister is also aware of some of the anxiety that revolved around Lord Byng school. I don't want to elaborate on that, but the parents, incidentally, were involved in leaning on the government. I commend them for their actions and activities. It was a way to communicate very effectively to the minister. I appreciate the minister's response to them. Obviously we still have a long way to go. The minister himself was a visitor to Steveston high school. There's one phrase that he's quoted for many times, saying how he understood the problem of crowding -- students squeezed like a tube of toothpaste, or something like that.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: That's pretty realistic. I've also had the similar kind of experience with the overcrowding, but the overcrowding is really a result of some important factors. One is, of course, the terrific population growth rate in Richmond. The minister and all ministries, I hope, are quite aware of that.
[ Page 13843 ]
A second important factor is the fact that the communities and neighbourhoods themselves are going through some terrific transformations, as are the old communities within Richmond -- and there are many different kinds of communities -- especially with new monster housing and rezoning and all the rest of it. It makes it quite unpredictable for that particular school board.
Third, I am sure the minister is quite aware, or has heard the argument many times, that when that school board was required to be fiscally responsible -- especially in the 1980s -- that in fact that particular community responded accordingly, and the board responded quite well. Unfortunately, they do have an impression that they've had to play catch-up. The ministry obviously has had some difficulty in trying to respond to that, with a decade of neglect, especially under the previous Social Credit government and all the rest of it But the fact is that they've had to play catch-up.
Normally that would not really be that negative an impact on a community, if the community's population growth was stable. If in fact it was predictable where the community was going, then I believe a catch-up strategy could be met within a few years. But given the Richmond situation, which I believe may be repeated in at least three other communities I can think of from the top of my head, and with some of these other population and resettlement factors, catch-up is a strategy that that community has to embark on but has had some obvious difficulties.
The Chair: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt you, but in fact the rules in this committee say 15 minutes for a statement, so a question might be useful at this time.
A. Warnke: I am very aware of that. hon. Chair; I see the green light. Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention.
So, hon. Chair, those are some of the issues. Perhaps at this time the minister would like to put on the record and make some clarification, and perhaps we can make some progress here as to the whole question, especially the one issue that stands out in Richmond-Steveston, and that's the whole question of portables and the need for appropriate expansion of Steveston high school and the proposed Garry Street school. Perhaps the minister could outline the current state: where we're going, what we have to achieve and so forth.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I would indicate that this government has been responsive in the overall sense to the needs not only of Richmond, but of districts throughout the province. Over the first three capital budgets of this government, we have allocated approximately $1.4 billion in education. This is the largest such amount that has ever been allocated in a three-year period, and the largest such amount across the country.
Within that total allocation over the last three budget years, Richmond has obtained some $58 million in capital funding. It goes, actually, a bit beyond that. The funding, as the members opposite know, covers site acquisition, planning, then completion. Over the past four fiscal years, Richmond has received capital funding of some $130 million, $87 million of that being in completion projects. That has allowed us to see an increase of some 3,400 in spaces under construction or just completed, which compares favourably with the approximate increased enrolment of 3,000 in the district.
Furthermore, through site acquisition or planning, there is a further 3,925 spaces. In the overall sense, if we look at running totals from 1989 through 1994, Richmond ranks third in the province in terms of district funding, exceeded only by Coquitlam and Surrey.
In terms of the enrolment growth during that period, Richmond, as I said, is about 3,200; Coquitlam has grown by about 5,300; and Surrey by over 10,000. So to have as much of the capital budget dedicated to Richmond as has been dedicated is indicative that (1) this government certainly recognizes the needs and has acted upon those needs; and (2) that we will see at least partial resolution of the problems. By the fall of 1996 we will, in fact, have more spaces in the elementary system in Richmond than there is enrolment.
The problem remains, of course, at the secondary level. There are a number of completion projects that the district has requested. I can only say that, in circumstances of rather tight budget allocation this year, Richmond will be treated fairly.
The member opposite said that neither he nor to his knowledge, I guess, any of the other MLAs in his party have ever said that we shouldn't build schools. But what his party has said is that we should cut down on debt; we should not have amassed the debt -- the buildup that has occurred.
Again, you can't have it both ways. The $1.4 billion of capital investment that I have mentioned is $1.4 billion of debt. Five ministries -- Education; the advanced ed part of Skills, Training and Labour; Health; Attorney General; and Social Services -- by themselves account for about four-fifths of the entire budget and put pressures on capital as well as on operating expenses. So members of that party cannot at one time stand up and rail at the government for having increased spending, FTEs or debt while at the same time argue in favour of increased spending in education -- increased capital; increased spending in health -- increased capital; increased spending in the Attorney General -- increased capital. It is, to say the least, an inconsistent position.
A. Warnke: The fact is that.... We do not really want to belabour the Education estimates well into next year, so I suppose there is a point of....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: That's usually a prelude to: "We're going to go into next year." I guess I would put it this way: it's one thing to.... I guess we could agree to disagree, because it seems to me that the minister also cannot have it both ways. In fact, when we deal with capital projects -- and I suppose you only have to think about what happens in one's own life or in the life of a company or a business -- obviously you take on certain kinds of debt. You do not pay everything off in one year and all the rest of it; we all know that. Obviously one does take out debt over a period of time. In fact, it doesn't seem to bother not only New Democrats.... Actually, that's the way it is in the archcapitalist world as well: you do invest in capital.
[ Page 13844 ]
I would think, hon. Chair, that anyone would talk about developing a substructure, putting emphasis on anything called a capital investment or a substructure. Sure, that's where debt goes into. It's not debt per se. This is where I think government members are getting a little bit confused. I think the way they interpret the official opposition's point of view is that somehow if we had our way, in the next year there would be an absolutely total elimination of debt. It doesn't work that way.
I think the problem is that the minister and obviously other New Democratic members don't really quite understand the nature of debt. Maybe it has something to do with the lack of knowledge of economics or something like that.
The fact is that....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: If we want to engage in second reading of something -- I don't know what it is -- we could, I suppose. But that is not the purpose of the discussion here. I am responding to the minister's quite valid remarks from his point of view that if there is, in fact, concern about the debt and the debt getting out of control.... I think we've mentioned that. There is nothing wrong with an opposition pointing that out, because we have had experience in other provinces, at the federal level and at other state and government levels. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. If, in fact, the government turns around, and is able to steady the growth of debt, apply debt to the infrastructure and deal with the building of schools over a period of time -- capital investment and all the rest of it -- hey, that's commendable. We don't entirely see that, but it is certainly an objective on this side as well. That's not the problem. The problem everyone, I thought....
[3:00]
I thought that we assumed in our society that education was not something of a bonus or icing on the cake, or that it's something extra in our society. Indeed, my view is that the role of a provincial government is to deal with education; it's laid out in the constitution. At any rate, as I've suggested, we could belabour this point, and I rather strongly suspect that we're just going to simply be disagreeing on this point.
The fact is that there is still a fundamental problem in Richmond. I guess what I would like to see from the minister is that the original statements that were made by the previous Minister of Education, who was part of this government when they made that kind of commitment -- and I've spelled it out here today just for the record....
I've read out the record. I was accurate in reading out the record. I just want to make darned sure that the government did not make a promise in 1992 during the Education estimates that they're not going to meet in 1997. I want some reassurance from the minister that when we're dealing with all school districts -- but I must admit that I was representing my own area of Richmond at the time I posed the question -- and when we're dealing with portables, with upgrading our schools and all those things that the previous minister had us believe that the government was committed to, that in fact those objectives and those aspirations are still the target of this present minister and the present government. If there's any shifting and changing, we'd sure appreciate knowing about it. That's essentially the fundamental question to the minister.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The commitments of this government to education are of the highest level. I believe they are unparalleled across the country. The evidence of that is the additional funding we have put into education each and every budget, and the magnitude of the capital budget.
For the members' information, I'll just quickly read down the list of schools that completion funding has been allocated for, where we honoured or added to the allocations: Cambie, Wowk, Boyd, Hamilton, Tait, General Currie, London, Westwind, Tait, McKinney, Errington, Lord Byng, Blair, Anderson, London and McNair. Some of those are mentioned twice because there were expansions in the meantime As I said, construction completion funding of $87 million on just those projects is a very, very major investment.
I can also inform the member, because of the number of spaces coming on in the elementary system, that we will see a reduction of portables in Richmond in the order of 75 as those new elementary facilities come on stream.
A. Warnke: Just to follow through on this general theme as well, I would also like there to be some specific reference to the proposed Garry Street school. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to elaborate on the current state of the Garry Street project and where it is going in the future.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will be making public the capital program for the current fiscal year probably within two weeks, and at that point in time, I will, of course, make available to the member the information he is seeking. In the meantime, he will have to accept my assurances that Richmond will be treated fairly within the allocation that I receive.
A. Warnke: I have just one other question. It's a point that was raised by many parents of the parent-teacher groups and other groups in my constituency of Richmond-Steveston. Actually, I would like to see some clarification on their behalf, about the nature of educational materials. Perhaps the best way to describe this is by way of example. It has been put to me that while there's a shortage of textbooks -- they have to be shared among students, students cannot take textbooks home to really study the material, and there is really no homework as a result.... I just simply don't know. Actually, there's one question I want to pose to the minister, because there's obviously quite a changeover of materials and texts available -- some texts may not have to be taken home, I don't know. On the other hand, if there is a serious shortage to the point that parents and students really feel that they're not getting the adequate materials, this is obviously bothersome and a concern to the community. Before I jump to any, maybe, wrong conclusions about this, I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of such concerns and whether the minister would care to assess the current nature of technical materials and maybe some of the problems that parents and students have.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm attempting to obtain.... Perhaps within reasonable time, before we finish this afternoon, I'll have some specific figures for Richmond that I'd be willing to share. I can indicate that overall last year we had about....
Let me explain, first of all. Within the block, we hand funds to each and every district to acquire learning resources of a variety of natures. This year there's some $28 million in there, and that goes into trust. It can only be spent on learning resources.
[ Page 13845 ]
Provincewide we reached a point last year where the trusts around the province held some $40 million of unspent learning resources trust money. In fact, it had been built up to the point that I authorized boards to utilize up to, I believe, one-fifth of their reserve funds last year for the acquisition of technology: software and/or computers.
Generally speaking, there is a surplus. I will have to determine whether or not there is an existing surplus in the Richmond School District. The allocation to Richmond this year is just over $1 million.
D. Symons: I was very interested in the minister's response when he was rattling off the amount of moneys and the schools that were funded a few minutes ago. One of the ones he mentioned was Anderson. I know he's been waiting for me to ask this question. When we had a private meeting with him a month ago, I asked the minister about the fact that Anderson had appeared in the newspaper ad. To my knowledge, Anderson had not received approval to go to tender at that time. Just a moment ago, I heard the minister indicate that Anderson was included, so I'm wondering if he might be able to give me the date of approval for Anderson going to tender. The board didn't know of it a week ago, and obviously we're getting some prior information today.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, I included Anderson as one of the 1994-95 projects that was funded for completion. The note to me here is that the specific project approval is in progress. It was my understanding, based on the record up to date, that the working drawings were commenced in January 1995. There was a little bit of delay as a result of negotiations between the board and the city of Richmond regarding cost-sharing arrangements for the construction of the school. If they have not yet received permission to go to tender, it is a matter of a very short period of time. But the project in its entirety is approved. It is allocated; the funds are there. It is a case of completing the processes that lead to the issuance of the specific project approval.
D. Symons: I'm somewhat confused, because I think the minister made a slight error there. You said 1994-95. Did you mean 1995-96? We're now in the 1995-96 fiscal year. You were referring there that this funding was for 1994-95, which is now past history, and you've indicated that it has not yet been approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funding that I made reference to is an allocation from the 1994-95 budget. That allocation is in place. How the cash actually flows is a different matter. Some of the cash will flow this fiscal year, some next fiscal year, some the next fiscal year and perhaps even the tail of the following fiscal year, depending on the construction program for the school.
D. Symons: Because it was supposed to be in place in 1994-95, you're counting it that year then. I'm still confused, because I thought you only counted at the point where the tendering funds have been put aside for the project. Before then, it's simply going through all the planning stages. So are you saying that this money kicks in at the very beginning, at the inception of the program?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The way the process works is that I announce a list of projects early in the budget year that will be considered for approval. Anderson reached the appropriate point, where it receives approval then to go on through planning to sketches and then on through working drawings. They still have to come back for the final specific project approval before they can go to tender. But the allocation is in place. The allocation is never taken away once the project is in the pipeline, so to speak. Anderson is in the pipeline; we're waiting now. The specific project approval could be issued shortly -- I'm not certain of the timing on it -- then that will allow them to move on to tenders.
D. Symons: Yes, it's becoming very clear. I see what we can do from the point you're just referring to, where the allocation is there. Although the money may not be there, we can then build figures up and you can put in nice little ads indicating what's going on, because these are all things that are planned. The moneys will be there sometime, and if we draw out giving the money, we can build a bigger table of what we're doing in Richmond. That seems to be what went on in the ad that was put in the Richmond papers recently, because you have included Anderson in there in 1994-95. You include a lot of other things that are in the works or coming down the pipe, as you said, but if there are some constrictions in that pipe -- either delays on the part of the school board or delays on the part of the ministry, which you made reference to in your open letter to the public in Richmond....
[3:15]
I would ask the minister again. From the information you gave me on the time lines I asked for on Anderson school, were your comments about the delays caused by the Richmond School Board valid? From my understanding of the checklist I had back from you, it would appear that the ministry was as responsible for those delays as the Richmond School Board, but the ministry wasn't mentioned in the ad as being responsible for some of those delays. I wonder if you might at least apologize a little to the Richmond School Board for an ad that was somewhat misleading.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We could probably go at this at some length. I'll try just a bit more. When a district puts in front of us a request for a project and we give approval in principle to that project, it is based on a set of design assumptions that the board and province have agreed on. Then they are to start down that path. From time to time, boards will request what is called a scope change. Usually, it is to add something; occasionally, it's to change something.
In the instance of Anderson, the board approached the ministry with the idea of reducing the scope of the project from a 100-kindergarten, 350-size school, to a 50-kindergarten, 250-size school. They made that request in order to accommodate other goals they had in mind. They initiated the scope review change. My officials said at the end of the day: "No, we think you should be proceeding with the full 100-K, 350-size school." A debate occurred and delays occurred because of that. That delay did not occur because the ministry tried to change the scope; that delay occurred because the board.... Now, I'm not putting any ill motives on them. They probably had some ideas that they felt would serve the purposes within Richmond, but the point is that they initiated the change in scope, and that delayed the process a bit. That's all.
[ Page 13846 ]
There are no villains involved. There are simple delays that from time to time occur with the best of intentions: delays with respect to site acquisitions; delays with respect to tenders coming in over budget and forcing a redesign of elements of it; other scope changes that boards will make during the final wrap-up to construction. All kinds of delays can occur.
It is commonplace in the ministry over the years that you allocate a certain amount, and that is a firm allocation. How the money flows, then, depends on how the project progresses. It is not unusual that only 10 percent of a project might flow the first year to cash. Perhaps on a major elementary school project, 30 to 40 percent might flow the second year and 25 percent might flow into the third year. When you're handling a $25 million project, these are just the ways there can be delays. Even in small projects there can be delays.
Again, there's no villain in the piece. It's just the kind of delay that occurs, and in this instance, the board requested a change of scope. There was argumentation, and there was a final resolution that we would stay with the same scope.
D. Symons: Well, I don't know about the villain part -- the ad I'm referring to in the two Richmond newspapers tried to remove, I think, responsibility from the ministry and place it on the local authorities. As I look at the time lines, the instance where they asked for a change in the scope of the program resulted in about a ten-week delay from the plans, because there had to be re-plans. But I find the same sort of delay if we go to the ministry's response -- let me just find it here -- from November 2 to January 18 in getting approval of the sketch plans, and so forth.
So, as much as there was a rescoping of the project back in the spring and early summer, it seems that the ministry, when there wasn't a rescoping involved -- just a simple case of approving the sketch plans -- seemed to take as much time as the board did in asking for a revised plan, revising the plans and submitting those revisions to the board. So I'm again suggesting that maybe it was inappropriate -- to put it mildly -- for the minister to include such a paragraph in his letter to the public in Richmond.
I'll move on, because I don't think the minister wants to continue on this vein. I just wanted to make that point: that I think the letter was misleading and maybe contained some things in there that should not have been said.
I also have some concerns. The minister apparently met with some parents prior to the meeting with the three MLAs from Richmond, and one of those parents, who is a rather vocal lady, had the distinct impression when she left this meeting that the minister had said that if the Liberals would ask for construction in Richmond, the minister would go ahead with the construction. That was certainly the impression this lady came away from the meeting with. I would just like to ask, before I make my next statement, if that was the correct impression.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, it was certainly not the correct perception. What I might well have said was something to the point of: "Gosh, I haven't heard representatives of the Liberal Party making a lot of noise about needing to run up more debt in order to build schools. They have been strangely silent on this particular issue." That may have been taken, mistakenly, that if the three members from Richmond asked, they would receive.
D. Symons: I was somewhat concerned when this lady passed that statement on to me. I thought it would be marvellous if the government was finally listening to the opposition members, because on so many issues we have tried to convince the government that maybe they were going down the wrong track or that they could make a change here or something there. In so many cases they paid no attention to us. So I was really thrilled that maybe for once there was going to be an admission that yes, if we ask for something, it will happen. Now the minister has dashed those particular hopes that I had, so I won't continue with that.
If that were the case, I would have no problem in asking. I gather that Richmond has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 24 percent of its students currently occupying portables. The other districts you named.... In fact, you named three districts most in need and where the most money had been spent. Surrey has 12 percent, and Coquitlam has 11 percent situated in portables. Those communities, I think, are somewhat the same age as Richmond in the sense that the school facilities there would be somewhat similar to what's in Richmond. Whereas Vancouver has a lot of older, maybe even more substantial, schools out there, certainly the other two districts are growing districts, like Richmond is.
So I would have no problem in saying that Richmond has by far, in my mind, the greatest needs, therefore Richmond should be number one on the list of addressing those needs. If addressing those needs means building more schools in Richmond, I think that should be done. I would very strongly recommend to the minister that it be done.
While I am saying that, I will also suggest that it could be done. If this government would behave responsibly, it could be done without adding to the provincial debt. All we have to do is look at the fact that the current debt that this government has run up during its short three and a half years.... They have increased the provincial debt by $10 billion.
If we work out a modest interest rate on the money that we have to pay off each and every year, approximately $700,000 goes down the tube every year in interest payments on that extra $10 billion of provincial debt. That is $700,000 that could be used for building classrooms in Richmond and elsewhere.
This government has added, during its three and a half years in office, 3,000 more full-time employees, not counting the 9,000 that were Korbinized. Therefore we now have 3,000 more people on the provincial payrolls. That is in excess of $100 million more in government payroll. That will build quite a number of needed classrooms in areas around this province, including Richmond.
This government, not due to economics at all, has 3,000 more people who are taking money out of taxpayers' pockets, money that could be going into building infrastructure in this province and isn't.
We have had the Island Highway agreement, which the minister is fully aware of because he was in charge of that ministry when it was put in place. The estimate by the building trades industry is that that is adding $70 million more onto that project. That again is money that could be used for building more infrastructure, classrooms, hospitals and whatever is needed in this province.
[ Page 13847 ]
In fact, when the minister was Minister of Transportation and Highways, he told me quite frequently.... When I asked questions about highway projects around the province and when these projects were going to be completed, he would ask me: "Which schools should I close, which hospital beds should I close, in order that we can build that highway you're asking about?" His concerns were for education and for health, and I admire him for that. But he would put this question to me each time.
Since you are going ahead with the Island Highway project, I have to ask: which schools aren't being built in Richmond because of the Island Highway project? When we are spending $800 million putting in new ferries, which schools in Richmond are not being built because you are going on a ten-year ferry project? So we have the question in reverse now. If we are going ahead with these projects that the minister was asking me about before when I questioned the timetable on them, we have to ask: because of these projects going ahead and because of buying votes on the commuter rail and so forth, are we not building infrastructure in the province because of those?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no schools not being built because we did the responsible thing: we kept putting money at very reasonable levels into school construction, college construction, courthouse construction and many others. We were doing the socially and politically responsible thing. We were not giving in to the naysayers of negativism and neanderthalism; we were getting on with the important business of the province. Part of that important business is the investment in schools, as I think I have made clear to the member. And without repeating them, if he goes back over my comments as to the amount of money that has been expended on schools in Richmond, how the number of children without permanent spaces is being brought under control -- and has been brought under control in elementary already -- I know that he, too, would agree with me when I say that there have been delays that have been outside the responsibility of the ministry.
Again, that is not to place fault. Acquiring sites in Richmond at an acceptable cost is a daunting task. The board, along with the city of Richmond, has made extraordinary efforts in cobbling together some very, very complex land arrangements. I compliment them for that. But the fact that the sites have not been in place has slowed us down with respect to the delivery of constructed secondary schools. That may change now that there has been some movement with respect to sites. Again, I can only say that when I do the final deliberations and make the final decisions with respect to the school capital allocation this year, Richmond will be treated fairly.
D. Symons: Just a few more. You'll notice that when I was suggesting where you might get money without adding to the debt, I didn't mention that patronage or golden handshakes were necessary to make space for new people coming in; nor did I even mention fair wages, which have also cost money out of the taxpayers' pockets that could be going for infrastructure.
I wonder if I might just look at one other aspect of this, because it's interesting. It came up a few days ago when the member for Surrey-White Rock asked some questions, I think, regarding using public-private partnerships as far as possibly putting in classrooms in the province. At that time the minister's answer was somewhat negative. It seems that since that time the Premier has come out at least indicating that there's a task force now looking into that aspect of it.
Going back to the minister's previous incarnation as a Highways minister, I note that Hong Kong went that route on building a bridge. They found out that when they turned the building over to a public-private partnership, it came out at approximately 50 percent of the cost that the government was planning on putting in to building that structure. They got the same structure for considerably less. Of course, it was tolled and so forth to pay for it, but they were just delighted by the fact that it saved a lot of money to the taxpayers' pockets and that it was paid for in a very few years.
F. Garden: Taxpayers pay tolls!
D. Symons: I'm not suggesting that we toll the students, as a member over there might be suggesting.
What we have here is the fact that often we'll find that the private sector is able to do things in a more cost-effective manner than governments seem to be able to do. I think this might be something the ministry should look into. I don't know that private money would necessarily come through and build a school, but is the minister at least willing to look into whether we can provide classrooms -- maybe more quickly -- without going into further debt in the province, and have classrooms that are on a lease-back basis?
[3:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, just to jump back about 22 questions and give the information with respect to learning resources that I indicated as soon as I obtained it....
On the last date recorded in June 1994, Richmond had $1.2 million in trust. By this point in time, they may have spent some of that or, with my approval, diverted some of that into technology. As I said earlier, they have received about $1 million in this current allocation. I hope that will go a long way toward meeting the needs of the families and students in Richmond.
With reference to the possible private-public partnerships in infrastructure, this is an area that we have had actively under discussion for several years. I was partly responsible for raising the issue in the first instance when I was Minister of Transportation. I pointed out the other day that a private-public partnership on schools may not make sense because of the capitalization-of-leases problem. But we are willing to look at it and, as the Premier has said, we are willing to look at it seriously. There is the potential to run even a few pilot projects -- maybe a handful -- to see whether or not there is something there. If a major developer were to be bringing on stream a very large development and had the personnel and equipment on site, it is conceivable that the same general contractor who is building much of the subdivision could also deliver a school simultaneously and in doing so gain some benefit due to scale. But it remains to be seen whether or not the benefit due to scale would be lost by the increased costs related to higher interest rates or profit. I am quite open to trying it on a pilot basis, and if we have anything further to report in that area, I will be pleased to report it.
[ Page 13848 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a question for the Minister of Education, namely, that I am frequently asked by parents and others in my constituency about compensation paid to administrators within the school system and, in particular, issues as they relate to severance and accumulated sick leave. In North Vancouver, I believe, some payments are in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to $300,000 a year. I have to tell the hon. member that parents in my constituency constantly tell me that they would like to see education dollars placed directly in the classroom and not go to these pay-outs, which certainly strike me as being somewhat generous. I'm just wondering if the minister could be kind enough to offer me his thoughts with regard to the need to attend to this concern on the part of the public.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The public is beyond being disturbed; the public is outraged at the kind of severance packages and pay-outs that have been made to senior administrators for such things as accumulated sick leave. Through the Public Sector Employers' Council, we instructed all boards to freeze current contracts with all senior administrators while a comprehensive review of total compensation was underway. Most boards have complied. We have had a few boards that have gone ahead with not only some of the perks that the member makes reference to but with actual enhancements of contractual obligations, which is to be deplored. Three hundred thousand dollars into a few pockets would have gone a long way in meeting the learning resources needs of children. It could have probably put a hundred computers on the desks of students -- and printers, for that matter. Those matters have got to be brought under control. I have indicated to all boards that they must work with us to contain those costs and, as the member has said, deliver the maximum number of dollars to the classroom.
Hon. M. Sihota: On another topic, in my capacity as Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, I wish to congratulate the Ministry of Education for their initiatives to bring Punjabi, Mandarin and Japanese into the school curriculum.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the opposition saying that this is at the expense of other programs, and it does disturb me that the opposition takes issue with these measures brought forward by our administration.
In an era when the Liberal Party has gone on record as saying that the government should cut more, when the federal Liberal government is cutting its transfer payments to the provinces, which help fund these kinds of programs in education, and when the leader of the Liberal opposition in British Columbia has indicated that the federal government did not go far enough in making the cuts it makes, it seems very clear to me that if there was -- God forbid -- a change in administration in this province, those kinds of programs that provide Punjabi, Mandarin and Japanese in our school system would be in jeopardy. As I understand it, the Reform and Liberal cuts, as they propose them, would obviously mean that programs which are new in the system, like these ones, would go. And I think that would be unfortunate.
As a member of a visible minority who speaks Punjabi and who looks forward to a day when my daughter, who's about to go into grade 5 in 1996, will be able to have access to these kinds of programs, it is most disturbing for me to see the opposition now contemplating more and more cuts to the education system, which would not only jeopardize but would indeed eliminate these programs.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that extending language policies from the traditional European-based languages to include Mandarin, Japanese and Punjabi, extending the rights of provincial examinability and also extending the years of instruction from grade 8 only to grades 5 through 8 are all steps that are greatly welcomed in the multicultural community.
There are additional groups that, when the situation warrants, we might want to give thought to as well, and those would be Cantonese and possibly Korean.
In addition to the Asian languages, of course, I think it is also necessary to recognize that we are extending the same to aboriginal languages. There are, I believe, 38 aboriginal languages where some degree of instruction may occur. We're doing more in that area by bringing out a new grade 12 course on first nations It's part of reaching out to that multicultural group in our society.
D. Symons: I have to thank the Minister of Environment, because my next question had to do with examinable second languages. He's brought it up.
Four of us from here were attending a public forum in Richmond six months ago, dealing with exactly the problem of examinable subjects. I believe you'll find that the Liberals were on record at that meeting, and remain on record, as encouraging the extension of that program to those languages where there are sufficient students to warrant it. That certainly was said.
I notice the minister is....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
D. Symons: So that was my question, and I guess the minister has now answered it. But the fact that we would be expanding the program of examinable languages.... Although Mandarin was added, Cantonese is probably the language that is more commonly spoken among the Asian community in my riding.
We have some other questions I'd like to ask, because I'm somewhat concerned.... I gather that the new funding formula will add, for Richmond, about $45 per student on a yearly basis. This includes money for non-teaching contract settlements, I believe, which is also in the statement that came out from the ministry on that. But I notice in there that there's nothing for increases in teachers' salaries, but there is money put into that funding formula for non-teaching contract settlements. I'm wondering if giving teachers' bargaining rights, and if teachers are then given a raise, does the board then have to take money out of other parts of the budget? There's precious little in there because, I believe, over 90 percent of the moneys used by school boards go into salaries. How are they about to do this? If you build in money for non-teaching salary increases but not money for salary increases for the teaching staff, how is the board to handle any negotiations
[ Page 13849 ]
they do? Indeed, how can negotiations be proper negotiations if the board's hands are tied beforehand by the amount of money the ministry gives them?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I've said on many occasions, as we have got the deficit under control, and now eliminated, we now turn to a long-term debt management plan, and you only get there by making tough decisions. One of those tough decisions is that in the allocations to education this year, there is no money allocated for total additional cost of educators. The built-in cost within the existing contracts are honoured fully throughout the province, and any increases that have been negotiated among support staff have also been recognized throughout the province.
We expect that the K-to-12 employers' association now will sit down with the BCTF and bargain hard. As they bargain, they should always keep in mind that there has been no further funding allocated for an overall increase in the cost of educators.
D. Symons: I find in the minister's answer a sort of contradiction in terms when he talks about bargaining but says there's no money there to bargain for. So that will make the bargaining process rather interesting, when it seems to often be number one on the list when bargaining goes on between labour groups and employers.
[3:45]
If we go back to the 1980s, when the restraint program was put in by one infamous Bill Bennett, the government of the day moved into something they called ability to pay, and school boards could then use ability to pay as a reason for keeping salary increases within a certain range. It would seem that what you just answered to my question is that you've applied the same reasoning but not the same terminology to the school boards now, as far as dealing with employee negotiations with their teachers. Is that true?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have set up provincewide bargaining for teachers. We have put in place an employers' association to do the bargaining on behalf of all boards, and we have told that side of the bargaining: be aware. We will pay fully for enrolment increases for extra numbers as required in that sense -- extra funding to your district -- but we will not fund any increase of total compensation. So if the K-to-12 employers' association wishes to yield a little over there, then they know that they must be prepared to gain a little some place else. If they're going to yield on one thing, they may have to take another look at class-size language throughout the province, or whatever they need to do. But it is a net zero game, and they know it.
L. Reid: Certainly I would like to begin by thanking the minister for meeting with the three Richmond MLAs -- Richmond-Steveston, Richmond Centre and myself -- on April 11. I believe the tenor of that discussion was very positive. Certainly the minister at that point talked about the door still being open for plans to be considered by this ministry. I certainly took the minister at his word. I trust that the discussion we had can be verified for the matter of public record today, because I truly do believe that there was confusion surrounding the advertisement that the Ministry of Education placed in the paper. Certainly I believe that the three Richmond MLAs and the minister did in fact come to some understanding around why that confusion arose; our understanding at that point was that the confusion was the result of the parents groups reading -- understanding, if you will -- of what completion funding looked like. Would the minister care to comment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In meeting with the parent group from Richmond -- as I have with parent groups from around the province -- I explained to them what the overall budgetary situation is, what the history of construction has been, how the funds have been distributed, and the mechanisms by which they are distributed. I explained the sequence that we follow -- or phases -- in the capital budget of site acquisition followed by planning, followed by completion, and how I was going to stick to that process. I shared with them that if any district wishes to have specific consideration, it is best that I know of the circumstances in that district, and some of the best people with respect to making me know what is happening in their districts are the MLAs who represent that district.
In the instance of Richmond, I said that if you want school construction, your MLA should be aware of that and should be lobbying, as do others. It would also help a great deal if they, at various times, were to stand in their place and say: "Yes, I approve of increased debt in order that we can build more schools." Schools are the future of our economy; they are the future of our country and, as all parents know, the future of their families.
L. Reid: If I might draw the minister's attention back to the actual question I posed.... In terms of the confusion that arose as a result of the ad that was placed in the Richmond News and the Richmond Review through your ministry, it talked about completion funding. In fact, 3,400 spaces of completion funding, up to and including January 1997, was the discussion that you and I had in your office that day. I believe that's factual. In terms of the ad that was printed, there still seems to be some confusion in the minds of Richmond parents that indeed they looked at completion funding being up to and including 1994-95 fiscal, when in fact your picture was much broader, and it took it up to and including January 1997. Is that still the case?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It perhaps comes down to a misunderstanding as to what, within the system, we mean by completion funds and what parents understand by completion funds. If for any district there was a completion project of $20 million approved this year, then that's part of the capital envelope for last year, 1994-95. The $20 million is allocated; it starts the process. If it is a large senior secondary that's being built, it could easily be two to three years before the doors are actually opened. But in the terminology of the ministry, that project has its completion funds, and those completion funds are counted as part of the budget of 1994-95, in that instance.
It may well have been that innocently there was a misunderstanding between what constitutes completion funds. Does that mean the young person can walk into the school the next day? No, it doesn't. Some of our completion funds of the past year.... A student will not walk into them for another two years.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification, because I believe that is indeed where the confusion arose. I fully appreciate that we're talking up to January 1997 and that we're
[ Page 13850 ]
talking 3,400 spaces in completion funding for the school district of Richmond. For the record, could the minister advise this House how many spaces will be complete by September 1995?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm just glancing at the letter that I authorized to go out to Richmond. Among other things, it says that in the past few years we have provided completion funding of $86.9 million, which will result in 3,400 additional classroom spaces in Richmond. Unfortunately, schools take two or three years to build from start to finish, so catching up will take time. We cannot get rid of portables overnight, but new school construction has been a priority of the government, and Richmond's needs have been fairly responded to. Some delays in the project are not the province's responsibility.
There's nothing inaccurate or misleading in that. It is quite possible that there can be a miscommunication or a misunderstanding, but there is nothing that is intentionally misleading in that. I was trying to put the facts forward as well as I could.
With respect to your question, between September 1994 and September 1995, we will see approximately 500 elementary spaces open; by September 1996, we will see a further 700, approximately. So roughly there will be a total of closer to 1,300 additional spaces in elementary schools. They typically take one to two years to build, which is why they're coming on stream so quickly.
As I've said before, the problem is with respect to secondary. That, in turn, is related partly to problems of site acquisition, some of which have now been solved. From 1994 to 1995, we will see an increase -- by eye here -- of something in the order of 700 and in 1996 perhaps an additional 100.
As I've said in the letter, because of the nature of high school construction, any capital announcements that affect Richmond or any other district this coming year would take two to three years to become part of the available spaces of the district.
L. Reid: From the minister's comments, we currently have 5,500 students in portables in Richmond, and we are looking to have covered off approximately 1,500 of those spaces by September 1995. That is what I took from the minister's comments; I think that's fairly accurate.
In terms of a long-range plan for the additional 4,000 students in Richmond, which will grow by 500 or 600 students per year, in three years we'll still be at 5,500 students in portables.
Certainly the discussion we had that day.... We talked about the rolling school district plan, and we talked about sketch plans coming to the district. The minister's understanding, which he shared with us, was that final construction plans within 12 months are part of the priority for whether or not sketch plans are approved. Again, the deadline he noted for us that day was March 31, and that determines which projects will be considered for completion funding. I think I have that series of events in the correct order.
My question pertains specifically to the schools that we had questioned the minister on that day: Garry Street, Burnett and McRoberts. If, as the minister states -- he was very, very clear on this -- long-term planning around a secondary school is two to three years, then if we're looking to be on line in 1997-98, these projects have to be approved within this fiscal year, hopefully in the May announcement that the minister is going to be making any day. Is that reasoning useful? Does it indeed reflect the current state of events? And can we look to the long-term plan in terms of having those secondary students in placements by 1997-98? To do that, the decisions must be taken today, if it is a two- or three-year building process.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I won't be scooping myself today with respect to any specific announcements for the coming capital budget year. I can give a little further information with respect to criteria and certainly space demand. There is a criterion that there be a site in hand and that planning be well advanced past the sketch plan -- the working drawings may even be complete or, if not in hand, must be within a very short reasonable space of time. But I must not leave you with a misunderstanding. We have projects across the province where the site is in hand, the planning is complete and working drawings are in hand, which will not proceed simply as a result of the shortage of funds. You can do only so much. So I am saying that they are necessary conditions to have done, but just because those conditions have been met does not mean that project approval will be forthcoming this year.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, and that is exactly the distinction I am looking for. Certainly Richmond was left with the impression that there were phases of the process that they had not completed. I would suggest to you that that's not the case. Looking at the 1995-96 fiscal year, April 1995 through to April 1996, working drawings for Burnett will be ready June 30. Construction is apparently due by October 1995, Garry Street by July 30, and McRoberts' sketch plans are already in Victoria. We believe that we have complied with the ministry's requirements to at least put us on the table for a decision. Is that the minister's understanding as well?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have given the conditions that are necessary. In almost all of those conditions there is also a pressing space problem. But the space problems are more pressing in some locations than in others, so space is the primary demand.
Throughout the province I am allowing some projects to slip on the list, where I have been convinced by my staff that working drawings will be complete by an early enough time in the fiscal year to allow the specific project approval and perhaps tendering to occur in this fiscal year.
[4:00]
The Chair: Hon. members, that was a division in the other House, so we will quietly close our doors and our books, and come back in a few minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.
L. Reid: Just prior to that last vote, hon. minister, my question to you was whether or not Richmond had complied with all the requirements to be on the table when those decisions were taken. You certainly indicated that there were schools that may not be considered, but you did not respond to my question. Has Richmond complied with all the necessary requirements to be part of the decision-making process?
[ Page 13851 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there are projects in Richmond that meet all of the considerations.
L. Reid: It warms my heart, and it will warm the hearts of the Richmond District Parents' Association, as well. I trust we will find favour with you when you do make that decision.
I'm not clear if this project is part of the process: the Garden City proposal. Perhaps the minister could kindly update me on the status of that request.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The name Garden City doesn't immediately ring a bell. I wonder.... There are several names that different projects have. City Centre?
L. Reid: City Centre.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: While material is being assembled on that, perhaps we could go ahead to another question, and I'll come back to it.
L. Reid: Earlier we touched on the number of secondary students in portables within the Richmond system. It's approximately 36 percent -- approximately 4,000 secondary students out of approximately 23,000 students in the Richmond School District. As the minister is more than aware -- I know he has been party to the majority of meetings that have transpired with the Richmond District Parents' Association and the Richmond school board and school trustees -- they have looked very much at the current overcrowding scenarios within those schools, the majority of which were built for 700 or 800 students. All three have, indeed, double their enrolment, Richmond Senior Secondary was built for approximately 900 students and sits at 1,700; a similar scenario exists for Steveston Senior Secondary.
The minister's comments prior to going to the vote were simply that we will attempt to create roughly 1,000 new secondary spaces over the next one to two years. I believe the minister did agree that that was a concern and that we would continue to make some headway in that.
In terms of the ministry having a long-term plan, at the meeting the minister asked us what our knowledge was about the ten-year rolling plan for the school district. Having that information in front of me, what's the province's proposal for coming to grips with those scenarios that exist around the province?
Prior to the break we talked about what allows a determination for high priority, medium priority or low priority. We talked about crowding levels, we talked about number of portables and we talked about expected growth rates. That was at the meeting we had with the Richmond MLAs.
In that the secondary schools in Richmond currently meet all of those criteria, which puts them at the high priority status, the question I posed to you during those meetings looked at things like gymnasium space, library space and, very important, washroom space. This ministry continues to add portable space to schools, but the facility space -- what should be considered complementary facility space -- is often not forthcoming. I know the minister and I shared some empathy, if you will, around that topic of complementary learning space. It's just not appropriate to house all the students in the same site; they actually have to be able to avail themselves of some of the facilities and some of the curriculum opportunities that are possible at other sites in the district.
Would the minister comment in terms of -- if indeed the plan is as he states, 1,000 new spaces over the next year or year and a half for secondary students -- what can be done for those additional 4,000 students who will still be portables, so they can have access to improved library space, gymnasium space and, I trust, washroom space?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When portables -- particularly if a significant percentage of the school enrolment is in portables -- are added to a site, it increases the stress on the central facilities of the school. We compensate districts for the additional wear and tear that causes, and wherever the capital funding for a completion project can be supported, thereby eliminating some of that extra stress, all the better.
[4:15]
All I can say to the member at this point in time is that beyond the 3,400 spaces that are in various stages of completion now -- from having been occupied to will be occupied over the next year or two -- there are another 3,925 spaces where site acquisition either has occurred or is occurring, or where planning has occurred or is occurring. How quickly we are going to be able to roll out additional completion funds to bring the number of students, particularly in the secondary system in Richmond, down to an acceptable level, I cannot tell you at this time.
As I have said, I will be announcing the capital plan for this year within a few weeks, and then it will be the following budget process that will determine the following one. No further commitment could be made at this time.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. My question was specifically in reference to complementary learning space -- i.e., gymnasiums, libraries or, indeed, washrooms. Richmond Senior Secondary's capacity is 900 students; it is currently housing 1,700 without any additional washroom space. It's the same with Steveston Senior Secondary: capacity is 875 students, and it's currently enrolling 1,600.
Speaking as the Health critic, there has to be a point where that becomes a health risk in terms of the number of students that can conceivably be asked to avail themselves of the existing washroom facilities on those premises. Would the minister kindly comment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Certainly the overcrowding -- whether it's hallways, gymnasium space, laboratory space or washroom space -- in each and every instance is a problem created by overcrowding. One is the other.
The resolution of it, of course, is through the ongoing capital program. In the last analysis, it is the allocation of additional funds to build the additional space or to build a new school, which will then give the relief. It's very difficult to go into an existing school and just address, let us say, the library overcrowding. That's not practical. We simply have to do the sites and do the planning, then it's my job to go to Treasury Board and fight for the money so that we can deliver the completed capital projects and bring the overcrowding down to an acceptable level.
There is a place for portables. If we know there is a bulge going through the system, or even in a growing system, there will always be a certain percentage of students in portables as a prerequisite to expansion. But the situation with respect to
[ Page 13852 ]
Richmond in the secondary system has reached, for students, an intolerable or nearly intolerable condition. I would urge, and I do urge, all districts to consider other alternatives as well, within the authority that they have. Scheduling is one such thing. We have districts that are now running extended hours in their secondary schools. There is an overlap of core time, but perhaps the first shift, if you will, starts an hour or two earlier than it used to, and the last shift goes an hour or two later than it used to. They also move the shifts such that they are half a block out of phase, so you only have half the students in the corridors doing the changes or half the students in the library, perhaps, or half the students in the cafeteria -- if they have an eating area or cafeteria.
I would urge that you, in turn, urge your board. I urge them directly; I urge all boards to try to make, in a planning sense, the absolutely best utilization of existing space, because we all know that adding space endlessly is something that the taxpayer has a hard time accepting. Also, of course, it ties into the whole idea of year-round schooling.
I think, particularly at the secondary level, that there is no reason why we should not have given thought to year-round schooling years back. We're underway now in about six locations to do pilot studies. If we can switch three high schools to year-round, we could have the equivalent of a fourth high school. At land plus building being $40 million these days, that is a savings that we should look long and hard at, and encourage each and every district that has overcrowding problems to seriously consider that as a long-term alternative.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about coming up with some alternative delivery systems. My point, as it relates to washrooms, is that I do believe there are some health issues there, which if indeed were not on the line in terms of what the health requirement might be, we are perhaps within months of being in conflict regarding those health regulations.
I would also submit to the minister that there seems to be a lack of availability of funding for the smaller projects -- i.e., from our discussions it's unlikely -- from what I recall -- that a school would ever receive funding of $25,000 to $35,000 for washroom expansion, because it just doesn't fit into the other criteria. Is that a fair comment from our meeting?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have offered districts -- I believe Richmond -- portable washrooms. I think it might work particularly well for a secondary site -- I wouldn't recommend it for an elementary -- to bring in and do all the proper hookups for a good quality, but portable, washroom facility.
It's my understanding that the board has turned down that opportunity in favour of wanting to see a capital expansion. Maybe I can understand their point of view, but the idea of portable washrooms to alleviate some of the problems that you have mentioned has been offered to the district.
L. Reid: That certainly ties in with the discussion we had about modular schools, in that we discussed the number of different sites around the province that currently have many, many portables on site. We discussed the possibility of creating a modular system -- a modular school site -- that could be moved from site to site within the province to allow the students to occupy that modular school, staying on site while their new school is being constructed.
If that is still part of your thinking, it seems to me that if indeed we move to that kind of new construction possibility, we can probably include some new washroom construction within that. Perhaps it's even possible to have those washrooms stay as permanent structures on school park sites, because the majority of Richmond.... We have tended, I think, to be very successful in terms of combining the park site with the school site. Often the park site does create a washroom facility that is permanent. Perhaps it is possible to accelerate that kind of thinking, so the washrooms may not be attached to the school but are on the site so that the students will still have access. Is that a possibility?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The idea of having designs that are more modular in nature is something that is being investigated and will be reported out to me shortly. But to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I should stress that I am speaking here primarily of permanent buildings that can be built and added to in a modular way.
Aside from that kind of building, you can have temporary modular buildings, and we have had some on various sites. In fact, we have just successfully moved one from Cassiar, where it was in storage, over to Dawson Creek, where it is now part of the high school. The district pulled off that project very well, and everybody is happy with the outcome. So there are those instances where a temporary modular school might serve a purpose as well, but generally speaking, that isn't an alternative we are pursuing.
L. Reid: I was seeking clarification earlier.... My comments were in regard to the need for decisions in 1995 on the four schools to be on line in 1998. They were Garry Street, McRoberts, Burnett and City Centre. I believe the minister was suggesting that Richmond has met its requirement to be part of that decision-making cycle. For the record, is that the case?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We are having a little difficulty with the name. I'll read you the district's high-priority requests. We have Burnett, Garry Street, Matthew McNair, Hugh McRoberts, Howard De Beck and Alberta Road, but we don't have a project in Richmond referred to as either.... Garden City was one name you mentioned, and City Centre was another. The cause of the delay on this side is that we cannot identify that name.
L. Reid: I believe it is in the No. 4 Road-McLennan area.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That would then be the so-called Alberta Road school. Is it a secondary school?
L. Reid: According to this sheet, it's the City Centre secondary.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Well, I believe that in another life then....
At least in the 1995-96 capital plan submitted by the district, they are referring to it now as Alberta Road secondary. What they are looking for at the present time is some planning money for a new 1,200-capacity secondary school. That request, along with all other requests -- not only from Richmond but from 74 other districts -- will be considered fairly in my coming capital announcement.
[ Page 13853 ]
L. Reid: If I might just take a moment, I'm seeing if they have ever referred to it by another name, but I don't believe they have. We'll assume that it's still considered City Centre, because that briefing was days old. I will certainly clarify that with your office, if indeed the name has changed.
Were you answering in the affirmative? Has Richmond complied with...? At least, since we have some confusion about the name of the fourth, were you replying in the affirmative to those first three that I mentioned? Has Richmond complied with all the requirements?
[4:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to this particular site, it is my understanding that they have now completed the site acquisition. It is another of the complex land aggregations that this district has put together, and now they are applying for the next phase, which is the planning money for schools. As the site has been acquired, they are now eligible to apply for planning funds. Whether or not those planning funds will be forthcoming is part of the decisions that I am finalizing over the next several weeks.
L. Reid: I appreciate that, hon. minister.
As for Garry Street, McRoberts and Burnett -- you're answering in the affirmative. We have met all the requirements for those three schools?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the first site you mentioned -- as I recollect, those were Burnett, Garry Street and McRoberts -- the district is in the working drawing stage for all of those. That is to say they've completed their sketch plans, and they're into that rather intensive phase of producing actual construction drawings. As they are well along in that process, I am deeming that they have met the criteria that I have set out for them to consider within the current fiscal plan.
L. Reid: Thank you, hon. minister. I appreciate that affirmation, most definitely.
I want to spend a couple of moments on a press release of April 13: "B.C. Supreme Court Rules 1992-94 Fair Wage Policy Invalid." It talks basically about where we as the Liberal caucus have been over the last number of months in terms of whether or not the fair wage policy....
Interjection.
L. Reid: Yes, a legal challenge which was successful, hon. member; you might be well apprised to read this.
It certainly talks about a position the Liberal caucus has taken over a number of months in terms of where this government's priority is in terms of whether or not they would choose to fund students in this province -- and, frankly, from my other portfolio, to fund patients in this province.
They say very, very clearly that the decision by Judge William Scarth states that "the provincial cabinet overstepped its responsibilities by imposing the fair wage policy by directive, instead of introducing legislation." It's a fine, fine release; it goes on in some detail. It finishes by saying:
"ICBA's legal challenge forced the government to come clean and introduce legislation. They may have plugged a legal loophole, but they can't hide the fact that the policy is a horrendous waste of tax dollars. They continue to thumb their noses at taxpayers with this new law, by refusing to acknowledge its added cost impact, estimated at $166 million per year."
Their final statement is: "That's money that could be spent on building new classrooms instead of packing students into portables."
This is the release of the ICBA, Independent Contractors' and Businesses Association of British Columbia. I think it's a valid comment, because I certainly take extreme umbrage with the comments that many members of the New Democratic caucus continue to parlay in terms of where this government's sense of priority is.
I would suggest to this minister that it's not always on education; it's not always on health care in this province. Certainly there are many, many choices taken which negatively impact on students and on patients in this province. I would ask for the minister's comments.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member wants to get into a wide-ranging discussion with respect to the fair wages act, this is probably not the most appropriate forum for her for the following reasons. In education the unit rates by which we fund schools have stayed the same. Like elementary, in 1991-92 we allowed $1,150 per square metre, and in 1995-96 we allowed $1,150 per square metre. On the secondary side, it has risen from $1,200 to $1,240 over that period of time. In some actual closed tenders, the unit rate on an elementary school, pre-fair wage, came in at $1,219 per square metre. In a comparable-sized elementary school, post-fair wage, it came in actually at about $40 a square metre cheaper -- $1,179 per square metre. In the secondary system, taking two schools of comparable size -- one in Surrey and one in Coquitlam -- pre-fair wage, it came in at $1,342 per square metre; post-fair wage, it came in at $1,196 per square metre, a reduction of $146 per square metre. So in regard to the notion that the member opposite is trying to give legs to here -- or, to use another metaphor, to see if the kite will fly -- this ain't the right ministry to try it. Fair wages have not impacted on school construction, and the history of that is quite clear over the past four years.
L. Reid: The other point I made was the $166 million impact as a result of fair wages. Would the minister confirm or deny that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member will have to take that up with a whole series of ministers, I guess, with respect to construction costs within their own ministries. Being responsible for Education, I have just given the member some hard data indicating a decrease in costs, post-fair wage.
W. Hurd: I just have a brief series of questions to the minister, and I apologize in advance if any of these issues has been canvassed. Unfortunately, with two Houses in operation, it is sometimes difficult for members of the opposition to monitor exactly what's happening here. I've done my best to review the Blues with respect to the issues that I raise. I don't see them adequately addressed, but I'm sure the minister will welcome the opportunity to correct me.
I know the ministry has adopted as a target -- again, we get back to these benchmarks -- a considerable reduction in the administration costs at local boards. I think the target figure was 15 percent across the board, I know the minister
[ Page 13854 ]
will correct me if I'm wrong. Could he tell the committee what progress the ministry has made in realizing that target of a 15 percent reduction in the administration costs in the 75 school districts in the province?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe the 15 percent figure that has been mentioned related to the 1994-95 budget year. In 1995-96 we are reducing the expenditure at the admin level by about 2.3 percent. I can also tell the member that boards throughout the province are managing to keep within the cap that I have set.
W. Hurd: Just so I have this straight: the target for the '94-95 fiscal year was 15 percent; the target for '95-96 is 2 percent? Is that what I'm hearing?
The minister will be aware that the announcement he made with respect to offering school boards help in reaching that target was received somewhat unenthusiastically by a number of boards across the province. I just wonder if the minister can tell us whether that initiative, which I think is an important one, is still underway or whether the boards have simply opted out of any involvement in this offer by the ministry to assist them in identifying real cuts in administration cost.
As we deal with this issue in my particular region in Surrey, concerns about administration costs continue to be out there. I just wonder if the minister can tell us, in answer to my first question, whether the 15 percent target for '94-95 has melted down to 2 percent, or whether there is that type of percentage projection? Secondly, could he tell us how many school boards have availed themselves of the opportunity presented by the ministry to assist them in identifying major reductions in administration costs?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, the 2.3 percent that I mentioned is in addition to the 15 percent of last year. We set a target last year of $302 million provincewide That was some 15 percent below the total of budgeted amounts across the board.
As a result of putting that cap on and legislating it, boards around the province reacted by slimming down at the admin level. This year I have held the cap at $302 million, which.... Given that our enrolment will be up by something in the order of 2.3 to 2.5, by holding the cap, what I am asking for is, in effect, a real reduction in admin spending of a further $7 million this year. And I fully expect that each and every board will meet that target.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that there are a number of districts that, in fact, haven't met the target. I know that North Vancouver, for example, provides a specific example of where it would appear that the minister's directives, which he's outlined to the committee, were simply ignored. That's why I wonder whether or not he can tell us how many boards have met the two-year targets that were established by the ministry for reductions of administrative costs.
I ask him again whether or not they have asked the ministry to come in to identify those cost savings. Or have they initiated their own reviews of administration costs and taken the appropriate action? Can he tell us how many of the 75 districts, in his opinion, are on target to meet the goals that he set in the last two fiscal years?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The cap that was set, which totalled $302 million last year -- there were allocations to each board, totalling $302 million -- was a hard cap, and all boards met it. It does not put a limit on things within the admin budget. They can continue to shift cost factors around within the cap, but they had to meet the cap, and they did. The early indications are that every board will meet the cap that has been set for this year as well.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to hear that, because I think it's important to parents and students in the province that those administration costs at the board level are scrutinized and that there is some accountability within the ministry for bringing them down. It's something that we'll certainly be watching for in the coming fiscal year.
[4:45]
I just want to ask the minister a basic question, then, about the increase in funding for education in the last number of fiscal years and where the money actually goes. It's my understanding that in the 1994 budget there was approximately a 3.9 percent increase. Among other expenditures, this included 2 percent for growth, 1 percent for economic lift, $30 million for special education and $3 million for teacher training. I wonder if the minister can tell us if, in the context of the current fiscal year, the largest percentage of the increase continues to be for special education.
Obviously that expenditure impacts on a relatively small number of fast-growing districts in the province. In terms of the increased spending, I'd like to think that there is a recognition that boards like Surrey, Richmond and others, which are growing at such a rapid rate, are really grappling with the costs of providing special education in an integrated classroom.
I wonder if he could tell us if he's satisfied that the ministry is meeting that considerable problem in fast-growing districts, where they have this responsibility to integrate special needs students. The complaint continues to be that the funding levels have simply not kept pace with the explosion in growth and that more and more special needs students are living in districts that do have that funding problem.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Last year the special ed number jumped by some $30 million because of a brand-new initiative to address the challenge related to severe behaviour problems -- a new initiative to assist the system with helping approximately 1 percent of the entire enrolment. That $30 million was added; it was an enhancement to the special needs program. Between last year and this year, nothing else has changed. We will be funding on an enrolment basis all the way through special needs categories. There have been no other policy changes with respect to special needs funding.
There are some technology moneys involved. I don't know if that's what the member is getting at. But with respect to all special needs children -- severe behaviour now included -- the system will be funded this year comparably to last. If the general enrolment has gone up by 2.3 or 2.5 percent, special needs has probably gone up by about the same amount.
I've just been handed the figure. This is the target for special ed across the province. Last year it was about $366 million; this year it will be $379 million, an increase of $13 million, which is about 3 percent.
[ Page 13855 ]
W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that answer. Can he advise the committee, then, how a fast-growing district such as Surrey, which does experience fluctuations from year to year in the number of special needs students, is expected to deal with those fluctuations within the existing fiscal framework? One of the big concerns that was addressed to me in a meeting, involving all Surrey MLAs with the parent advisory committees throughout the district of Surrey, was that special needs students were claiming a larger percentage of the budget each year and were not adequately accounted for in the fiscal framework, and that it was a challenge faced uniquely by districts like Surrey and others that are growing at such a rapid rate. So I wonder if the minister is satisfied that the fiscal framework is flexible enough to recognize the fact that from one September enrolment period to another the district can be left grappling with an increased number of such cases and has to devote resources toward meeting a mandated program for special needs students. which might otherwise go to other expenditures of the board. As the minister well knows, it's a considerable area of concern in Surrey, and one that is continually reported to MLAs from both the government side of the House and the opposition side.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In a rapidly growing district like Surrey, enrolment over the last five years is up about 24.5 percent, and funding is up 44.8 percent. This year for special ed in Surrey the number will increase from about $26.4 million to about $28.1 million, an increase of about $1.7 million. That number will be finalized based on the September 30 count of special needs children, which is then reported to the ministry. The final numbers won't be precisely the numbers that we have here, and they will be recognized and funded as of their September 30 count.
If the member is raising the issue generally of the cost of special ed and whether or not it is better to have children integrated in an inclusive system and accept the additional costs associated with that versus going back to having special schools for children with special needs -- if that's what the member is getting at -- I could answer that. But I'm not quite sure where the member is going.
W. Hurd: Just to clarify the question, as I understand it, the information that is being presented to the opposition by the board is that it's difficult from one enrolment year to the next to predict the special needs requirement of the district. There is such a dramatic change in enrolment from one year to the next. I am advised that for the upcoming '95-96 fiscal year, Surrey School District is projecting another 1,900 students to enrol by next September. Even using the minster's formula for the number of special needs students in the province, clearly there would be a component of that 1,900 increase that would require resources that the ministry wouldn't necessarily have in this fiscal year. I think that's the issue the board is raising: that there seems to be no flexibility within the fiscal framework to recognize the fact that a district which does grow by 1,900 students is likely to have a greater need for access to that funding than a district which has no growth or very little growth.
The concern being expressed is that there seems to be no flexibility within the system to recognize that Surrey School District would face a much greater variance from one year to the next on special needs students, who the minister well knows are a major cost addition to each board when meeting the needs of those students. Not for a minute would I be advocating that there should be a change in policy, but there needs to be recognition that the board does grapple, from a fiscal standpoint, with the need to meet this special education requirement from one year to the next.
The complaint they're offering to this member, and, I am sure, to government members, is that there is not enough flexibility in the system to allow for them not to have to divert revenue from other sources to meet this ministry-mandated commitment for special needs education.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There would not be a need to divert resources. The district cannot spend less than the targeted amount for special needs. The numbers upon which we rely to calculate the targeted amount are based on projections that are made and then checked with the district for the accuracy of the various categories. Then the district's immediate task is to come up with a budget representing the assumed figures. The actual figures are counted on September 30, and the actual numbers are funded.
Surrey has been doing well by the system. Provincewide, I would point out that the increase in enrolment is projected at 1.8 percent and the block funding change at only 2.4 percent. In Surrey, by comparison, the enrolment change is estimated to be 3.9 percent and the funding change 5.7 percent. It continues to attract its proportion, or perhaps even a bit more, of block funding. The increase of $1.7 million for the target for special education is based, as I've said, on numbers that have been checked with the district.
W. Hurd: The board has advised the opposition -- and, I am sure, the government -- that it's currently $8 million short of its operating needs for the upcoming fiscal year. I understand, also, that there is a need for the board to acquire a further 90 portables because of the increase in enrolment, and yet the board advises that they don't have the money to acquire the portables.
I wonder if the minister can confirm that that's, in fact, the situation in Surrey, and I'd appreciate knowing if it isn't. But if it is, can the minister tell us what the board would normally be expected to do if there is an identified need for 90 portables without the capital to acquire them? What are the alternatives for the board to consider?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: For portable classrooms in Surrey, looking at the 1995-96 capital plan requests, they are anticipating a need for 50 to 60 additional portables. If it's that number or the slightly higher number that the member mentioned, then they will receive minor capital funding for the number of portables they require. A large number of spaces have been approved and are under various stages of construction in Surrey. Over the past four years there have been about 2,000 spaces provided in new schools. There's Latimer Road, as a replacement.
[5:00]
Two new schools have completion funding now, another 725 spaces, and there's completion funding for additions to 19 elementary schools, another 2,725 spaces. So there's been a tremendous amount of construction going on in Surrey, but at the present time we do have approximately 12 percent of students in Surrey accommodated in portables, and we
[ Page 13856 ]
provide funding for approximately 232 portables. If that number has to increase temporarily while new facilities come on stream, the ministry again will provide the minor capital required to meet Surrey's needs.
W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister has heard the lament of the trustees in fast-growing districts on many occasions, but the opinion expressed by those trustees is that the fiscal formula for funding education has resulted in a series of incremental funding lapses for fast-growing districts, and that has resulted in a six- or seven-year period of what amounts to a significant funding shortfall on the operating side. That's the message the boards continually push out there.
I guess my question to the minister is this: is there enough flexibility built into the system to actually keep the funding at the same level or perhaps reduce it for districts that have experienced a net loss of students, if there are any in those categories in the province? And is there any recognition that some of those students may be coming to areas like Surrey and the lower mainland, where there is this dramatic enrolment increase? In the minister's opinion, is there any merit to the arguments of the trustees that the funding formula is just not flexible enough to account for these types of fluctuations in growth from one fiscal year to the next? The board in Surrey is certainly getting great mileage out of pointing out that they have suffered this incremental shortfall on an annual basis, which has resulted in some of the really difficult decisions being made today.
I wonder if the minister can tell us whether over the past number of fiscal years fast-growing districts have kept pace or whether the fiscal formula has, in fact, resulted in shortfalls on the operating side as the trustees have claimed that it has.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, I would say that among all districts, Surrey has fared close to the top in terms of meeting its needs for educating children in a rapidly growing district. As said earlier, over the past five years enrolment growth provincewide has been 14 percent and block funding has gone up 26 percent, about -- not quite double -- 12 percent extra. In the instance of Surrey their enrolment has gone up 24.5 percent, and their block funding has gone up 44.8 percent. I suspect, if you take the ratio of these numbers provincewide, you will see that Surrey is keeping up with everybody else.
Many districts make arguments for additional funds. They are funded primarily by their student count. If a district is experiencing declining enrolment, they get declining funding automatically from year to year. The districts know what the projections are for enrolment, so they know a year in advance whether they should be anticipating fewer or more dollars the following year.
On a per-pupil basis, looking at district expenditures, between 1993-94 and 1994-95, which are the last two years that I have, Surrey has gone up 5.9 percent. So they were fully funded for every pupil, and for each pupil their expenditures went up 5.9 percent. Glancing up and down the list provincewide, again on that basis, Surrey has done very well. It's just about the greatest increase in expenditure per student FTE in the province.
We have not only been meeting the needs of a growing district such as Surrey, the new funding formula treats them more fairly, more equitably, than the old. In addition, they've got inner-city grants, they've got two Kids At Risk projects going on in Surrey and they've got the school meals program.
All told, Surrey is being treated equitably. I know they have a challenge because of the rate of growth of students. To see that over this period of time -- Surrey has grown by 10,000 students over five years -- is an awesome management task. The Surrey board has done well to keep on top of this problem. In terms of funding from the province to do their job, Surrey has been treated fairly.
W. Hurd: I have just one final question on this matter. I think the board and the parents continually point out to their provincial representatives that for, I believe, the last six or seven fiscal years the district of Surrey has been either seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth out of 75 districts in terms of per capital funding or per pupil funding. It's an issue that continues to be raised in the district -- that the largest district in the province should consistently occupy that seventy-fifth standing. I would ask the minister whether that's true and, if it is, whether the students and the parents in Surrey should be concerned about that statistic, given the fact that, as the minister has stated, the method of funding education is on a per-pupil basis. Does it matter that the district of Surrey is consistently at the bottom of the list in terms of the dollars spent per student? Does that translate into any real problem for the parents and the students in the district of Surrey?
There's a perception out there that it is a statistic that really measures the mediocrity that exists with respect to the funding formula. In the minister's view, does a district that consistently occupies that standing of seventy-fifth out of 75 throughout the years face any disadvantage in terms of the quality of education that the district can provide?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funding system is equitable. Surrey is not seventy-fourth out of 75; it is not first; it is not seventy-fifth or thirty-seventh. They are identical. In every district, a child in the primary years receives $3,114. This is so in all 75 districts. In early intermediate, a child receives $2,715. In grad, let's say, the district receives $3,079 per student. The career planning students are $85 per student in whichever district that student is in. Every elementary school receives $46,670 per school as a core grant. If it's a secondary school, it's $101,257 per school.
The career programs have identical funding in every district. The English-as-a-second-language programs have identical funding in every district. The Programme Cadre and the amount that special needs students get for each severe behaviour or for each moderate handicap or for each severe handicap is identical in every district. There is no district that is number one or number 75. They are identical.
Where funding varies from district to district depends on what their average teacher experience and qualifications are, what the distance from Vancouver is for the shipment of goods, whether or not they have small secondary schools -- and if they do, they are treated equitably -- and what they receive for community schools. All these things can vary from district to district because of the parameters, so Surrey may receive more or less than some other district for transportation, as this relates to transportation costs. But the students in Castlegar, Kelowna, Kamloops or Whalley get identical funding per student, per special needs student, per career student, per school, per district or what have you. Surrey is neither number one nor number 75. It is the same as 74 other districts.
[ Page 13857 ]
L. Reid: I want to ask some questions this afternoon, hon. minister, on behalf of Image Media, a firm in my riding. I met with you almost three weeks ago, on April 11, and in a matter of days you responded to the questions I had posed to you. I thank you most sincerely for that.
My concern is that my constituent has been requesting a meeting with officials from the learning resources branch for more than six months -- since last November -- and he is still not able to secure a meeting. It causes me some concern when I can have my questions answered within two days and a constituent -- a taxpayer in this province -- is frustrated to the extent that this individual has been. There is really no other recourse than for me to bring these questions to you this afternoon.
[5:15]
I am certainly prepared to put the questions on the record, and I would understand if the minister doesn't have the information today, but I can only appeal to the minister to ensure that this information, as requested, finds its way back to the constituent. Six months is absolutely deplorable, in my view, in which a meeting would not be granted, let alone a response to his inquiries. The situation deals with Image Media, which is a company in the riding of Richmond East. My constituent would tell you: "...there has been a pattern of deliberate interference in our business by the Ministry of Education. They have forced us to destroy $15,000 worth of catalogues." The Ministry of Education has held their invoices and have told distributors that if they deal with them, they will not receive government licences. "They have paid higher-than-average fees when the distributors have threatened to turn programs over to us and have not responded to a quotation from us, even though the price was less than one-half of the going rate."
Those are the kinds of concerns that are being put out by this individual. If the minister wishes to comment, I'll certainly take my seat. Otherwise, I'm prepared to put the questions on the record.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member should understand that the firm in mind was not successful in the tender on some work. They are not happy with that; they are making allegations. I do not accept their statements as fact. They have chosen a litigation route, and on the advice of the Attorney General, our staff should not, in fact, be meeting with them while the litigation finds its way through.
L. Reid: I will continue. Suffice it to say that this minister's legal bills are paid for by the taxpayer. When it's a constituent who truly wishes to have a meeting, I think perhaps litigation can be avoided. I don't think it's appropriate to propel people to this level of frustration and then suggest that you can't meet.
I would also not accept the notion that this is only about a tendering process. That issue, as the minister stated, was business that in fact did go to another company. But these issues, I think, bear some discussion today. Certainly I would....
The Chair: Excuse me, I wonder if the Chair might intervene at this point. Some clarification is needed. Is this issue before the courts at the present time? Do we know that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it's in litigation, which is why the Attorney General is saying we shouldn't be speaking to the party.
The Chair: Yes, so there is an issue of not prejudicing anybody's case here, one way or the other, by pursuing this matter further with putting questions on the record. I would rule that it is not appropriate to do that at this time. You could speak to the minister separately about dealing with it in some other way, but at this stage, if it's in litigation, it creates difficulties for everybody. So I would suggest, hon. member, that you pursue another line of questioning.
L. Reid: I would ask the Chair to consider that ruling. I believe both parties do have access to legal counsel, but I do not believe it has progressed any further than that. As such, I would ask that I continue.
The Chair: I'm in your hands in the sense of where this is at as a legal matter. If it is in litigation, what does that mean? I take that to mean it's getting close to the courts.
L. Reid: It's your terminology, hon. Chair. I would suggest that I be allowed to continue to put these questions on the record.
The Chair: I looked to the minister to ask him to clarify that, so I would like him to pursue that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issues were gone into in great detail with the firm involved, but not to their satisfaction and so they have chosen the litigation route. I will say nothing further with respect to this matter in this forum.
L. Reid: For the purposes of today's discussion, I will put the questions on record, because it does appear to be the only way this constituent will receive any answer to his very legitimate enquiries.
F. Garden: On a point of order. Hon. Chair, I took it that you made a ruling a few minutes ago, advising the member to pursue another line of questioning. Am I to assume that she's challenging the ruling of the Chair by proceeding in the present matter? You did make a ruling.
The Chair: I thank the hon. member for Cariboo North for raising the point of order. I appreciate that the issue may seem unclear. As Chair, I said earlier that it is unclear whether this matter is, in fact, before the court's eye. I would like to draw to everyone's attention, however, that the minister has described his situation as being uncomfortable with addressing and pursuing answers to these questions in view of any issue that may prejudice what may happen down the road in the other system out there. So at this stage I guess I have to caution the hon. member about what she has in mind to do and would perhaps appeal to her to understand those issues that the minister has raised and what the minister has said he will do, which is that he will not respond. He may decide what he wishes to do later, but the indication was that he would not be responding to your questions on that line.
[ Page 13858 ]
L. Reid: And as such, on behalf of my constituent I will continue. This firm, Image Media.... Sent several notices to schools have led many schools to believe that they are not to deal with this firm.
"By doing so, they have not only affected our business, but the business of all those distributors that we represent. For example, not allowing us to send out the catalogues hurt many distributors who had their titles listed with us...we lost over 2-1/2 months of selling time before we could reprint the catalogue. We lost over $100,000 in business, and thus could not pay out $10,000 in royalty fees."
Again, these are the questions from Image Media that they have been seeking answers to for upwards of six months. Again, not a decent way for this ministry to proceed.
Again I would pose the question: why has your learning resources branch indicated to up to a dozen educational video distributors that if they offer their video titles to schools through a B.C. company, Image Media, the Ministry of Education will not license their titles for use in B.C. schools? I understand that this has been done even though your ministry requires non-exclusive rights to these videos. In addition, why has the learning resources branch not moved forward on a quotation from Image Media on a licence on a recommended video title when that quotation was 50 percent lower than most other quotations that have been accepted? These are questions that we hope to have answers to in the very near future.
Why did the learning resources branch pay a fee to a Canadian video distributor when that fee was initially rejected by the ministry as being too high when that distributor threatened to have those titles marketed through Image Media? Again, this is a question I trust this ministry will consider.
Why did the Ministry of Education order over $80,000 worth of video and diskette duplication services and software licences from Image Media and then refuse to pay Image Media for a period of eight months? Even by the turnaround time in government, that is far too long.
We understand that the ministry is holding an invoice from Image Media for over $250,000, dated April 1994. This invoice is being held to pay licence fees for videotape copies that were ordered from Image Media by the ministry and that are currently being used by the ministry. How can the ministry justify having Image Media pay these licence fees when the ministry ordered the tape copies, is using them, negotiates the licences and did not inform Image Media of all the copy restrictions on the tapes? How can this even be considered when Image Media voluntarily lowered its contracted duplication price on these copies and saved the ministry over $750,000 in videotape duplication fees over a five-year period? Again, these are questions for which I hope answers will be forthcoming.
Why is the learning resources branch paying fees for video duplication licences for a limit of 200 copies, when those fees are the same as would be charged for up to 1,000 copies? Why is the learning resources branch now licensing video programs for higher fees than those that were rejected a year ago as being too high? Why did the learning resources branch force Image Media to dump and reprint over $15,000 worth of catalogues by denying permission to Image Media to make use of the Ministry of Education code number assigned to 300 of the 1,200 video titles in the catalogue? Again, an excellent question, hon. Chair.
Why did the Ministry of Education release selected pages of a draft version of an audit of a number of video copies made by Image Media before that report was finalized and before it was reviewed by the minister?
Why did a recent director of the learning resources branch, after an internal audit on the branch, state: "If the learning resources branch was a business, it would have been shut down and all of the managers fired." Again, an interesting comment.
We understand that the contract to duplicate Ministry of Education licensed video programs was awarded to a Toronto-based company and that all the duplications are now being done in Toronto, where they used to be done in Richmond. What evidence can you give us that the new contractor is providing a higher level of service, has increased the number of videos distributed to British Columbia schools and is fulfilling all the commitments made in its proposal to the ministry? What evaluation criteria are being used to evaluate these services?
We understand there has been a contract awarded to conduct an evaluation on the services of the learning resources branch. What events have caused the ministry to do this evaluation?
Why did the learning resources branch refuse to release video contract information to your Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, information that would have saved the post-secondary ministry time and expense in renegotiating video licences? And why does the learning resources branch require schools to erase tapes when the contracts have lapsed, then renews these contracts shortly thereafter, forcing schools to repurchase copies of tapes they have just erased?
All in all, not the sign of a well-orchestrated, well-organized ministry. I would hope, on behalf of my constituents, that the answers to these questions will be forthcoming in the very near future.
L. Fox: I have a few questions. I beg the indulgence of the minister if this one has been asked before, because these estimates have gone on for quite some time. I scanned very quickly the Blues and didn't see it addressed, but I may have missed it.
I've had a number of discussions with school board administration people, as well as with school principals, around the effects of section 21. Certainly arbitration has flowed out of that section, and the deterrent that that has placed on many individuals who are presently teachers is a real deterrent to them looking at whether or not they want to go into the administrative field. If we have had any discussions on that, then I would leave it and read Hansard, or I will let the minister respond.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I don't believe the issue has been raised in these estimates.
L. Fox: Very good. I'll get into -- just in a light degree.... The minister must be aware of the concerns; they must have been brought to his attention by the respective school districts. I've had some copies of letters to the minister from school districts around the province. I'm just wondering if the minister has reviewed some of the background material that's been sent to him on this issue or if he's in the process of doing that.
[ Page 13859 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The act is clear with respect to the current rules. With respect to this bumping and seniority issue, if the employers' association wish to negotiate something in or out, as long as it's within the act, it remains a contractual or bargaining unit debate.
L. Fox: The first question that comes to mind is that in the rural parts of the province, when they've advertised for administrators, they've looked around at this section and at the issues and have decided that they didn't want to leave their respective school districts and put themselves in jeopardy. So I guess the question then is: if it's left on a district-by-district basis, how will that work? If one district has it and the other one hasn't, it seems to me likely that the portability of administrators between districts is still going to be a real problem. If the minister is suggesting to me that all 75 school boards could indeed negotiate with their respective collective units a similar portability clause, then how would that address this issue? I don't understand that.
[5:30]
There are a number of questions that will carry it on well beyond the hour and I have probably about 15 to 20 minutes worth of questions myself. I move that the committee 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 ]