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)
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 12
[ Page 13861 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I call Bill 5, Securities Amendment Act, 1995, in the main House; and in Committee A, I call continued debate on the Education estimates.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: In January 1994, Mr. James Matkin submitted his report on the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. One of Mr. Matkin's key findings was that successive governments had failed to provide the B.C. Securities Commission with sufficient financial and human resources to effectively regulate the securities market. The government accepted this finding, and in its response to Mr. Matkin's report in October 1994 announced that the Securities Commission would be granted financial autonomy in order to ensure that it had the necessary resources to effectively regulate the provincial securities market.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
Bill 5 implements this commitment by establishing a new financial regime for the British Columbia Securities Commission. The two key features of the bill are: first, the commission will be a Crown agent, and all revenue received under the Securities Act will be paid directly to the commission rather than to the consolidated revenue fund; and second, the commission will be able to hire employees directly, as opposed to under the Public Service Act.
These measures will give the commission greater flexibility to acquire additional resources or to redeploy its existing resources more effectively. For example, the commission will be able to better budget and carry out regulatory initiatives that span multiple fiscal years. The commission will also be able to hire additional staff to respond to the regulatory needs of industry.
In announcing the government's intention to grant financial autonomy to the Securities Commission in October 1994, I also announced that measures would be imposed to ensure appropriate public and financial accountability under this new regime. Bill 5 contains these measures.
The commission will be required to prepare and submit an annual business plan to Treasury Board and to prepare an annual report that will be tabled in the Legislature. Accounting policies and systems used by the commission must be approved by the Minister of Finance. The accounts of the commission will be audited annually, and financial records must be open for inspection by the minister or designate.
Because employees will not be appointed under the Public Service Act, prior Treasury Board approval will be required for the remuneration levels paid to commission employees. To avoid duplication of administration and support services, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate administrative services which the commission must obtain from existing government ministries or agencies. Essentially what this means is that the Ministry of Finance will continue to provide the administrative services personnel, financial administration and the like so that we don't end up duplicating those services. The Minister of Finance will be the fiscal agent for the commission, and money that the commission receives but does not immediately need must be placed with the minister for investment. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approval will be required for the commission to borrow money from other than the Minister of Finance.
The measures, I believe, impose a high standard of accountability on both the commission and the government. In reviewing Mr. Matkin's report, I undertook extensive consultations with individuals and groups involved in the securities markets and their regulation. A common message I received during these consultations, and one on which there was widespread consensus, was the need to provide the Securities Commission with greater resources and budget flexibility. Bill 5 responds to this message and is a key part of the government's initiatives to strengthen the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the security sector in British Columbia.
Just for the information of the members, I want to alert them to the fact that there were a number of other regulations or recommendations coming forth from the Matkin commission which will be dealt with in a separate piece of legislation. This simply deals with the financial autonomy recommendations coming from Mr. Matkin's work. There were a number of other recommendations which members are aware we accepted when we responded to the Matkin commission, and those will be tabled in the House in the next few weeks.
With that, I will now move second reading of Bill 5.
Deputy Speaker: You've heard....
I recognize the member for Delta South.
F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You nearly slipped one through there. I was going to allow this vote to take place first and then speak. I'd have been a bit late.
Government after government over the years has dealt with the issue of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the Securities Commission, and the reputation, perhaps less than desirable, that the Vancouver Stock Exchange has been given over the years -- partially earned, I guess, and sometimes not. But I think that all governments, and certainly this opposition party, support the concept that Vancouver needs to have a vibrant, working stock exchange that looks after the particular market segment that they do. The key to doing this in a responsible and fair manner is to ensure that the Securities Commission and other government agencies have the resources to be able to fulfil their mandate. I think this bill is an important step in creating a situation that does give the Securities Commission the freedom and the opportunity to look after their responsibilities. Until this moment in time, there has always been the potential excuse that resources simply have not been available. They have been subject to ministry budgets even when activity has increased revenues dramatically. They haven't had the freedom to increase their expenditures to meet that increased demand. That will change with the passage of this bill, and they will now be able to respond.
[ Page 13862 ]
I would like the minister to recognize that what we are creating, of course, is a monopoly, and they have to remain competitive. But it's not competitive for other securities commissions operating within British Columbia. They must recognize that they should be playing a positive role in a fair and open securities market, and they must not price themselves out of business. I haven't seen any means in Bill 5 by which the government will specifically control the level of charges that the Securities Commission will set for their services, but I presume all that will be part of the business plan that the Securities Commission will have to lay before government every year.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
There are two or three other minor issues that will come up in committee stage. I would like to see the auditor general make recommendations about the appointment of an auditor. It's a subject that we deal with all the time. Although the auditor general doesn't need to do all the work -- and I'm not sure that we would agree that the auditor general's office should be staffed to do all the work -- I think government should recognize that the auditor general should have a role in the determination or the appointment of the auditor, and the bill at the moment leaves that responsibility in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council without advice.
[10:15]
We have been waiting with interest for the report of Mr. Justice McKenzie on the accusations that were made by Adrian Du Plessis. That report hasn't been forthcoming. My understanding of the issue is that Mr. Justice McKenzie has had problems getting all of the issues dealt with to his satisfaction so that he's in a position to report. It would have been nice to have had that report first to see if he would have come up with any issues in his report that dealt with the way in which the Securities Commission is organized. But I would imagine that with these changes the commission, with the advice of the minister, will be able to respond to any of those concerns anyway.
Over the years, the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the British Columbia securities industry have been subject to a lot of criticism in the media. Some of that has been well deserved; much of it has been repetitive, where we've heard the same old stories talked about time after time. But with the passage of this bill there's a new opportunity. In my opinion, there will be no excuse in the future for the Securities Commission not to respond to the obvious needs of this industry.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to Bill 5 this morning, and am pleased to advise the minister that we will give this bill our wholehearted support.
Hon. E. Cull: I think this is a very straightforward bill. It's going to perhaps have most of its discussion during committee stage. With that, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 5, Securities Amendment 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 committee on Bill 10.
MOUNTAIN RESORT ASSOCIATIONS ACT
The House in committee on Bill 10; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: We had a pretty good debate on this bill in second reading on principle. I don't have many questions in committee stage, but I do have a few. The minister talked about Bill 10, the Mountain Resort Associations Act, which is an important piece of legislation. I'm not sure why this particular minister is bringing this bill before the House. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have the Minister of Tourism or even the Minister of Municipal Affairs bring this bill before the House. But I suppose it might have something to do with the infrastructure-related component of mountain resort associations and communities. I'd just like to ask the minister for some clarification. Is that why this is coming under Employment and Investment? Is that why this particular minister is sponsoring this bill?
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, there are several issues here. In fact, a lot of the bills could be carried by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Affairs, Tourism, and this ministry have all been working cooperatively on this bill. But principally, we see this sector of the economy -- the mountain resort sector, if you will, or ski hill development -- as a significant economic engine for the province. Whistler has proven that. We have a competitive and comparative advantage when it comes to the terrain in British Columbia. There is, literally, about $1 billion of private sector investment looking to invest in British Columbia.
For a variety of reasons there are bottlenecks -- bureaucratic as well as legitimate bottlenecks in debate -- to go through. So the Premier asked my ministry to look at facilitating ski hill development as part of our economic strategy. Through the B.C. Investment Office we now have several people on staff who have an expertise in the area. With me in the House today are Doug Macfarlane, project manager from the B.C. Investment Office, and Gary Paget, executive director from Municipal Affairs, to deal with aspects of the bill. We see this as a significant job creator in British Columbia. We're trying to drive through some of the bottlenecks, to bring some certainty, to bring some decision-making and finality to facilitate some of this private sector investment. That's in a general sense.
Then specifically, on the resort side we see some resorts -- particularly Sun Peaks, then there's a little bit of debate, but probably Mount Washington down the road and some of the other ski hills, like Big White, Hemlock Valley and others....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Is that in your constituency? We see some resorts, as they reach a certain critical point where they really can take off, taking advantage of this legislation. Our ministry sees it as a natural extension of the facilitating and promoting of ski hill development, and that's why it's here under my name. But a lot of the administrative detail and work will be done by Municipal Affairs as well as by the tourism industry. This is a big driver, so Tourism is involved as well. It's just one of those cross-ministry initiatives.
[ Page 13863 ]
D. Mitchell: During second reading debate the minister made a comment about the fact that he wanted to build on the Whistler experience and wanted to create more Whistlers, if that was possible. I'm not sure that is possible. Whistler itself as a resort municipality was initially established with significant public funding. The initial investment in infrastructure in Whistler to develop it as a tourist destination resort had significant taxpayer investment. Is the minister saying that with this bill, the Mountain Resort Associations Act, other resort associations or communities -- perhaps resort municipalities -- are likely to be able to expect the same kind of public investment to give them a kick-start?
Hon. G. Clark: The short answer is no. I guess that was then and this is now, and we have very scarce fiscal resources that we have to husband very carefully. But that's a bit too black and white, because we do have a variety of mechanisms to try to facilitate infrastructure investment. One is the federal-provincial infrastructure program, which Rossland has taken advantage of, and that will have a huge and positive impact on that ski development. In addition, we have a lot more creative methods of trying to finance infrastructure investments through the Transportation Financing Authority. As members know, we are paving the Mount Washington road, and that's about a $14 million project that's being paid for in whole or in part by the skiers at Mount Washington.
I agree with the member that we do see public investment and infrastructure as being important to facilitate some of this private sector investment. We're prepared to play our role, but there's simply not going to be the kind of massive investment that there was at Whistler at the time, which really had to be written off entirely at a certain phase and then moved to a sort of more self-financing model.
This legislation does give the owners of property around ski hills and of the ski hills themselves the wherewithal to tax themselves to promote the resort destination. That has been a successful part of the Whistler drive to international success, and we think that's a more appropriate role for government, certainly in this day and age, than massive public funding.
D. Mitchell: During second reading debate, the minister indicated that there has been a lot of consultation with the skiing industry, for instance, and the tourism industry in anticipation -- and development --of this legislation. Can the minister give us a sense today in committee as to who has been consulted in the preparation of this legislation? Who in the industry -- in the private sector of British Columbia, in particular -- has been consulted? I think that would be useful to have on the record.
Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, there are all the different ministries: Environment; Attorney General; Municipal Affairs; Finance and Corporate Relations; Aboriginal Affairs; Small Business, Tourism and Culture; Treasury Board staff; Social Services; Skills, Training and Labour; Recreation and Consumer Services; Health.
In the private sector and the community at large: the Union of B.C. Municipalities; the Canada West Ski Areas Association, Jimmie Spencer, president; Sun Peaks, particularly Al Raine and Darcy Alexander; Ray Young, who's a municipal law specialist in Vancouver; Bob Miles, the Squamish administrator; Whistler municipality, Mike Vance, director of planning; Blackcomb resort, Hugh Smythe, president; Peter Alder, developer at Whistler and resort industry consultant; Fernie Snow Valley, whose owner is Heiko Socher; Mount Washington, Pat Dixon; Big White, Rick Siemens; Apex resort in Penticton, Brian Rhodes; Silver Star resort at Vernon, John Gow; Panorama Resort, Graham Wood, manager; city of Rossland, Andre Carrel, planner; the Revelstoke Economic Development Commission, Doug Weir; Ecosign Mountain Resort Planners, Paul Mathews; Whistler Resort Association, David Thomson, president.
So that's a partial list of the people that we've consulted, and I think all members will agree that we've had extensive discussions. I might say there may be some disagreement with it, although I haven't heard it. It seems to be almost an overwhelming consensus that this is an appropriate role -- in fact, an exciting role -- for government to pursue in order to provide some leadership and the resources to develop these mountain resorts.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that list; I commend him on the consultation, actually. I think that it was important to have on the record that there has been some private sector consultation. There's good support within the industry -- within the skiing industry in particular -- for this legislation. I also don't mind taking the opportunity to thank the minister for giving us a few weeks before we got to committee stage on this bill. I asked him for that commitment during the second reading stage, not to push this through too quickly. I don't know if he has simply accommodated that request, or whether it has something to do with the disarray in the legislative program. Who knows? But whatever the result -- or whatever the consequence -- I thank him for not pushing this through too quickly, because it's given me an opportunity to confirm that there has been some consultation, in particular with constituents of mine in the Whistler area.
When it comes to financing these mountain resort associations.... Hon. Chair, I hope you'll provide some leeway under the definition section to ask these questions, because it will expedite the bill later on. I'd like to ask the minister: when it comes to financing the mountain resort associations under this bill, was it contemplated that in order to have the full implementation of resort municipality or improvement district functions...? How are they going to be financed? The normal borrowing and financing options seem to be removed for these mountain resort vehicles. But in the appropriate situation, will the government consider resort infrastructure financing through provincial borrowing vehicles such as the Municipal Finance Authority, or would it be through the infrastructure program that this minister is responsible for? What will be the financing vehicles available to these associations under the act?
[10:30]
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, in the case of the Mount Washington road, the province borrowed the $14 million to pave the road, and it's being paid back through a user charge on skiers. So in that respect, even though it's self-financing, the province is doing the initial work; so we're obviously prepared to entertain any self-funded infrastructure program. So I'd be delighted if there were opportunities like that to expedite literally hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector investment for a modest provincial outlay fully cost-recovered from users. So that's certainly available.
But more to the point in this bill, if Sun Peaks, for example, is registered as a resort municipality under this legislation,
[ Page 13864 ]
then they would have the same access that a municipality would to seek funding through the Municipal Finance Authority. That means that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has discretion to give access to the municipality for the purposes of borrowing under the Municipal Finance Authority. I assume that would likely be in consultation with my ministry, to make sure it made sense. So there is that. As a municipality matures as a resort municipality, they would be treated like a municipality and have access to the kind of borrowing capacity that any municipality would have.
D. Mitchell: I just have a couple of further questions, then, based upon what the minister has just said. I think in most cases the private sector developer would bear the cost -- would provide the resort infrastructure at its sole cost. But when it comes to infrastructure for a community.... These resort associations are going to be creating tourist destination resorts, but there are going to be communities growing up around them as well. Those communities require infrastructure, just like any other communities, so they can enjoy the standard of living that we all take for granted as British Columbians.
In Whistler we've certainly seen some of the challenges inherent in that. It's difficult, the minister will know, because when many people, including British Columbians, think of Whistler, they think of a skiing destination resort. They don't often realize that there's actually a community growing there that requires schools, sewer facilities and other infrastructure.
So I wonder if the government has considered this when it comes to these resort associations that are going to be formed under this legislation. When it comes to, say, sewage treatment facilities, and the standards need to be upgraded for solid waste disposal, there could be a role for government in financing the upgrading -- the capital costs of these important services, especially ones that lead to higher environmental standards. I wonder if, in preparing this legislation, the government has considered that.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, in fact the legislation really is precisely to deal with that question, because it gives the resort municipalities many of the powers of a municipal government. Once the resort municipality is normalized or is more mature, and as the development takes place and schools and other things are required, then clearly the province will treat it as any other municipality -- as we have with Whistler -- in terms of trying to provide resources for school and other infrastructure development.
Similarly, the resort municipality will have the obligation, if you will, that a municipal government would have, which is to provide through their tax base -- which they would have the power to do -- the kinds of infrastructure required to expedite the development. In this case, I think, certainly at the early stages, the member is correct that the developer who wants to put in a condo development will be required to pay for all of the infrastructure to service that condo development. I think the member is saying that at a certain critical mass, there then need to be public recreation facilities for workers at the site; there need to be schools, community centres and those kinds of things. I agree with that, and we hope that happens.
That will be some cost pressure on provincial government resources as well as on the municipal association -- on their borrowing authority as well as on our borrowing authority. But, you know, that's sort of the price of progress. This is creating thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of investment. We do anticipate that taking place over time, particularly as these resort associations start to mature.
D. Mitchell: I just have one final question for the minister on this. I'd like to ask the minister to clarify, on the record, what these creatures are that we're creating under this act -- these mountain resort associations. We have a model in British Columbia, which is a resort municipality model, and which has its own legislation. That's Whistler. The resort municipality of Whistler has its own legislation, establishing itself as a unique kind of municipality or local government in British Columbia.
Now, under Bill 10, we're creating these mountain resort associations. Are these intended to be a prelude to separate municipal status for these associations somewhere down the road? Would those municipalities require their own legislation at some point down the road, similar to Whistler? Or would it be covered under this act?
I note that under Bill 10 there is a reference to the improvement districts that can be established under this act. As they grow, these improvement districts are necessarily going to be interacting with various ministries of the provincial government, regional districts and other municipalities in the region. What will the status of these improvement districts be? Will they at some point develop municipal status of their own? Is that what is contemplated under this act? In that case, will the model that the minister has referred to -- the Whistler model -- become somewhat redundant as we head into this new world, this new regime, where these mountain resort associations are going to develop their own models through these improvement districts? What will their municipal status be in British Columbia? Will they become full-fledged members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities at some point? I'm wondering where we're heading with this. What are these creatures that we're creating here? How would they compare, say, to the only model that we understand and know today in British Columbia, which is Whistler? It has its own legislative status.
Hon. G. Clark: Generally, there are two objectives in the bill. One is the business promotion objective, if you will: the resort business improvement area, the resort association, tourism promotion, etc. Then there's the governance, if you will, or service provider piece.
I think the member's question is a good one. What we see happening is an evolution. At the end of the day, if they develop as aggressively and as significantly as some resorts think they will, then they will end up becoming full-fledged municipalities and members of the UBCM, etc. We see this bill allowing for that evolution from a resort association -- promotion, tourism and the ability to expedite some development around their properties -- to, as their governance becomes more mature, a municipality with the full powers of a municipality, as we see in Whistler.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, then, based upon what the minister has just said, will these mountain resort associations...? If they want to move to municipal status somewhere down the road, will they require separate legislation of their own, much like the resort municipality of Whistler, or will
[ Page 13865 ]
they simply at some point become full-grown municipalities under the Municipal Act? I know this is outside this particular minister's jurisdiction, but I think clarification would be useful in this bill. We are establishing these mountain resort areas, and the minister has said that they are going to be interacting with other agencies of government. Will the municipalities that emerge from these mountain resort areas require separate legislation, like the resort municipality of Whistler, or will they simply come under the Municipal Act as local governments do?
Hon. G. Clark: No, they don't. This bill is like a menu of opportunities that moves people along a continuum to eventual municipal status, not to a separate bill, etc. I think it's fair to say that this gives the options that Whistler has to other resort associations, ultimately leading to municipal status. There's no separate bill required; they would get municipal status under the Municipal Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: I won't be asking terribly complex questions of the Minister of Tourism, so I'm sure he can handle them on his own. While we're supposed to be on section 1, the debate is sort of wide-ranging. I don't have a problem with that; the minister doesn't seem to, either. Perhaps it will expedite movement through the sections afterwards.
I do have a question with regard to what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is talking about. If you have a situation where you have a ski resort that lies within the extended boundaries of a municipality, and it starts to develop on its own but might be a few miles from the town centre or whatever community was there.... If the mountain resort association developed along that continuum that the minister mentioned and finally arrived at the stage where they felt that it was necessary to become independent from the local community, would they be able to apply under this act to establish a separate municipality? Would there be a division of the two which would allow them to move off on their own? We could do it in the specific section as we move along, but there is talk about dissolving an existing improvement district to make allowance for this new mountain resort municipality. But if that site were already contained within the broader land base of a municipality, would they be able to separate off on their own and become their own municipality? If so, would they require some sort of agreement with the municipality that was already in place?
Hon. B. Barlee: The Municipal Act essentially governs this, but cabinet still has some discretion on that. They would have to go the usual route through the Municipal Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: Okay, that's fine. It seems to me that the trend out there, however, isn't for municipalities to be breaking themselves up into smaller groups; the general trend tends to be that they are starting to come together -- sometimes reluctantly; that's happened a couple of times -- rather than trying to break municipalities up.
What I'm trying to find out is: if they were contained within the land base of an existing municipality, and the mountain resort association grew to the point where they felt they needed to be on their own and had different problems and issues they were dealing with, would they be able to do that unilaterally on their own? Would there have to be some agreement with the existing municipality? Would all of that be landing on the desk of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a decision? Would they be able to do it on their own?
Hon. B. Barlee: It is not the intention of government to encourage municipalities to incorporate those mountain resorts. When I look at the mountain resorts around the province -- certainly there are a number of them in the Okanagan: Apex; Big White, which the member opposite is very familiar with; Sun Peaks; Silver Star; and so on -- this has really not occurred. When I look down at the coast, we have Whistler and Blackcomb and various other resorts, as well as some others in the north and in the Kootenays, like Red Mountain and Fernie. I look at those various examples all around the province, and this has not proven to be a significant problem.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not saying it is a significant problem; I'm questioning the process if it were to become an issue. I think it's worth clarifying. Perhaps I'll save those questions until we arrive at sections 13 and 14, and we can look at it in more detail at that time.
C. Serwa: There appears to be a fair bit of latitude that has been allowed in section 1. I'm coming up in response to something I heard down below which has to do with the potential of funding infrastructure for an association. Would the minister perhaps clarify whether there may be the potential of funding infrastructure for this type of association at some point in the association's life?
[10:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: There is no funding for the associations. They are a separate entity entirely.
C. Serwa: Okay. Again, the minister who previously spoke on it appeared to indicate that, perhaps because of residential development going along with it, there was a potential for assisting in the funding of infrastructure. I have two different responses with respect to that. That's of colossally great interest to certain mountain areas. Perhaps the minister could reclarify the response.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are two separate intentions here. The latter one is that they enhance some of the powers of the municipality under the Municipality Act. That is separate and aside from the resorts' indication....
C. Serwa: I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. Could the minister state that once more?
Hon. B. Barlee: The municipality does get enhanced extensions or various powers, but that is entirely separate and aside from those powers granted to the associations.
C. Serwa: I'm very comfortable with that, and it's certainly my understanding. You would open up a whole new can of worms if any funding was advanced to the association to assist with infrastructure. In my constituency, for example, there are a lot of water improvement districts that do not get any assistance on infrastructure. The Central Okanagan Regional District does; the city of Kelowna does, for example. But the water improvement districts which serve residential
[ Page 13866 ]
developments do not get any infrastructure assistance funding from the provincial government. So this would be a departure, and it would basically break a principle. Band land, for example.... There are probably between 5,000 and 6,000 non-native residents in the Westbank band, and there is no funding assistance from the provincial government for infrastructure there -- water, sewer, etc. I just wanted to clarify that.
I'm not certain what this bill will in fact do with the association -- whether it gives the association some form of taxing power or taxing authority with respect to the promotion of the total area. I understand what the Whistler municipal act has enabled them to do and the abilities they have. I don't quite understand what the association will do that is not available in the current situation. For example, at Big White we can become a specified area under the regional district. As a matter of fact, we utilized that formula for bringing power to Big White. So we have a funding source under the Municipal Act and under the regional district, as a definition of a specified area. I can only presume that it is expansive into other areas. We certainly have used that for garbage collection under a specified area. So what exactly does the Mountain Resort Associations Act do that is not already available through other avenues?
Hon. G. Clark: I think there is a bit of confusion between the two elements of this bill. Maybe that's our fault, because they're both in the bill. There's the governance side -- the municipal governance part -- and there's the business association part. They're both in the bill, so I'm not criticizing that. But I think it's important for the purposes of discussion to have them severed, at least a bit.
On the municipal governance side, I think the member is correct that a special area.... Many of the powers of the Municipal Act that are available to resorts like Big White are now in this bill. They are a bit more codified and there is a bit more ability to pursue that. But it's not earth-shattering in terms of.... You are right, there are certain abilities to do that.
The business promotion side isn't anywhere. So this allows Big White, for example, to form a business association -- a resort association -- to pursue the promotion side, which is quite significant. That would not have been available to Big White in any way, shape or form in the past. So the ability to promote -- or even tax, under certain rules -- for everybody in the area to pursue a promotion strategy to promote the association or to promote the destination resort, etc., is in here as well. They are separate for the purposes of this discussion. There's that whole association part, and then there's the whole governance side.
In a way, the governance side is imported into this bill from the Municipal Act. So if you were able to access part of the Municipal Act before, that is still here, except that it is now in this bill rather than in the Municipal Act.
The Chair: Just before I recognize the hon. member, let me say we've enjoyed a tremendous amount of latitude and leeway in this bill under section 1. I am going to test the questioners to see if the intention is to examine all the sections under section 1 in order to get through the bill, or if we are concentrating on something specific later on in the bill. We've moved through several sections already under section 1. Hon. member?
C. Serwa: If you allow me the latitude, it is my intention to canvass everything of concern to me under section 1. If that is in order, then I would certainly appreciate it. I know it's a departure from normal procedure.
Hon. G. Clark: That seems to be the way we got started this morning, and if that pleases the House, then we will proceed in that manner.
C. Serwa: Thank you for clarifying that for me. Bringing the two under this seemed to be a bit of a mixup, and I recognize that they are very different.
So the business type of association for promotion of the area does not have any increased mandate of responsibility for, say, defining the direction the area would go or expand in? It has no sort of municipal governing status for planning? I note the nods from the minister, and I thank him very much for that. The opportunity for having the potential of becoming a municipality has great attractions for a number of areas as they extend their season simply from a winter season to a year-round season. I recognize that potential exists for a number of areas, and I appreciate the funding opportunities for infrastructure that are available.
The other aspect that is particularly important -- and very important in a mountain resort such as Big White -- is that they will be masters of their destiny for the first time ever. We happen to be located in the Kootenay-Boundary Regional District, with Trail being some 250 miles away from us. Big White is not a very great concern of that particular regional district, other than taxation ability. The reality is that we are only 38 miles from Kelowna, and all the service and infrastructure, all the support and education of children of owners, is done in the Kelowna area. Yet we're caught in this dilemma simply by the nature of the height of land. The potential for a municipal association might be a method of achieving a level of taxation and a direction that they might want, if they conform to the needs and requirements. I thank the minister for his comments on this particular bill.
Hon. G. Clark: Thanks. I appreciate that, because I know the member has more knowledge than I do on the business side of this. When you look at the landscape of ski resorts, Big White is clearly one of the potential winners in this. A handful of them are really close to becoming significant destination resorts. Sun Peaks is one; Big White is clearly another one. Mount Washington may be a little ways away, but it certainly has potential because of its geographic location on the Island.
We think there is some significant private sector investment -- millions of dollars of private sector investment -- just pent up looking for opportunities. We are hoping that this will be the catalyst to lever that private sector investment, and so we appreciate the member's support in this.
C. Serwa: Thanks so much for your tolerance, hon. Chair.
Just as a final comment, I want to applaud once again the minister and the ministry for the work done in this particular field. The mountain resorts have been good leaders with respect to organization for tourism, and the golf courses in British Columbia are following the format the ski areas developed in conjunction with various ministers of tourism. This is a splendid piece of legislation. I appreciate the consultative work that was done with the area operators' association. It's certainly one of the good-news bills.
[ Page 13867 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we're probably going to move through this fairly quickly. So I'm going to ask some specifics about a couple of sections, and then I think I'm pretty well finished.
I asked a question earlier of the Minister of Tourism, who is here, with regard to sections 13 and 14 of the bill, in this block of consequential amendments. They add section 9.1 and amend section 13 of the Municipal Act -- they're on page 7 of the bill. Section 9.1(4) states: "If an existing improvement district is situated within a municipality incorporated under subsection (3), the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall dissolve the existing improvement district by repealing its letters patent." My question dealt with what happens within a municipality with a broad land base when a mountain resort starts to expand and reaches the point where they want to get out on their own -- maybe they start to develop different problems or have different issues that they need to deal with. There's a foreseeable situation where that resort may, in fact, outgrow the town centre of whatever municipality it's contained in, and it may be to the mutual benefit of both parties to split because of those different problems. That's generally an unusual case when you get a municipality dividing itself, but I think it's feasible that that desire may arise. Can the minister tell me: would both parties in that case, both communities, be polled? Would there be some sort of decision-making at the local base? Or would that decision arrive on the minister's desk for his or her decision?
Hon. G. Clark: My staff advises that this has never happened. Remember, we're not dealing with resort associations in general. What happens is that there's a sort of succession, a progression into municipal status which would happen anyway, aside from this bill, whether it's a local improvement district eventually building up certain.... Those questions are dealt with during that succession. They're not dealt with when all of a sudden we have a municipality that overlaps jurisdiction, but as the area develops from an improvement district and on and on.
If there is a problem, I'm advised that the Municipal Act, this 500-page document, deals with something called reduction of area, and there's a whole set of rules. So if it ever did come to pass that there were overlapping jurisdictions or claims on jurisdiction, then there's a set of rules to deal with that. But my very strong sense -- and I think this is borne out by the entire 100 years' history of the province -- is that that wouldn't happen, because these things evolve slower than that and there isn't suddenly a situation where there are overlapping claims. They resolve them at the earlier stage, and that would be our sense of this bill.
[11:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: I hope that's the case. I have a subsequent question and perhaps just a general one to start with. They're two terms in here. We're talking about a mountain resort association, which is the business group from my understanding of what the minister said. Then we talk about the mountain resort improvement district, which would be the governance of the land and the business dealing with that group, if I'm correct. Okay.
If you look at page 11 of Bill 10, section 824.1 is added to the Municipal Act. I'm specifically looking at section 824.1(4)(a). It talks about transferring to "the mountain resort improvement district any asset, right, claim, charge or liability of the other improvement district or water users' community, and dissolv[ing] the other improvement district or water users' community...."
My understanding of that section is that the decision solely rests with Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, with the government. Is that correct? Would the people in that area have some ability to make that decision on their own, or is it something that's strictly going to fall to the minister?
Hon. G. Clark: Legally, cabinet does have complete discretion, I'm advised, and this is similar, again, to the Municipal Act provision. But in practice that is simply not done without the support and consultation of the residents. Again, remember this is where cabinet has discretion, as I recall, in agreeing to form an improvement district and in so doing extinguishes other improvement districts at the same time. That's a step which is not likely to be taken by cabinet unless it's coming from the community.
Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 10, Mountain Resort Associations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I now call committee on Bill 12.
ARTS COUNCIL ACT
The House in committee on Bill 12; D. Streifel in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 2 lists the purposes of the council as:
"(a) providing support for arts and culture in British Columbia,
"(b) providing persons and organizations with the opportunity to participate in the arts and culture in British Columbia, and
"(c) providing an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for managing funds for British Columbia arts and culture."
The artistic community and cultural community in particular have been asking for an arts policy for British Columbia. It would seem to me that this is the group which could best develop that policy, as opposed to having it done within the government, which again relates back to the independence we talked about earlier. I do have problems, which were mentioned in second reading, about the minister's staff being the people who are actually staffing this council. I understand the reasons the minister gave for it as far as costs, but my question
[ Page 13868 ]
to the minister is: does he not feel that section 2 would perhaps better represent the wishes of the arts and cultural community if it talked about that council developing an overarching arts policy for British Columbia that would allow some guiding principles to be set up for the council and for the government itself?
Hon. B. Barlee: I hate to fetter the Arts Council with specific principles. I think that's part of their responsibility. That council is composed of individuals of all political persuasions and all parts of the arts community. Frankly, I think it's better if we have a little more latitude there. Generally speaking, that is the perception of the arts community and the feeling of the arts community as well: that they do require a little bit of latitude in this area.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend in any way to fetter the arts community in what they would like to do with the bill. But the council.... I don't think that directing or allowing the Arts Council, under legislation, to develop an overriding policy for arts and culture in British Columbia would in any way fetter them. In fact, I think it would free them up from government even more, by saying: this is your responsibility; it's not going to be the responsibility of the government or the minister to have that overriding policy; that's something that we're expecting you in the arts and culture community to establish on your own. I think that by making that clear here we could in fact unfetter the community even more than they currently are.
Right now it's unclear who sets that policy. It's unclear whether that comes out of the minister's office under the ministry or whether the arts community does it on their own. The reason I raise that is to try and avoid any type of conflict, especially when you have the staff of this council coming directly from the ministry. Being employees of the ministry, the onus there as to who should be setting policy.... Is it the council that sets the policy? Or is it going to be the ministerial staff that work for the council and that, in the end, work for the minister that are going to be setting the policy?
The intent, I think, of my suggestion would be to make that clear up front. It would be to say: "You are the 15 people who we've selected from right across British Columbia to manage, to oversee, arts and culture in British Columbia. What we'd like you to do -- one of your main jobs -- is to set policy." Often what an overseeing appointed board does is set the policy directions and then let the managers manage. In this case it would be the staff who would be managing, and the policy would be set independent of government.
Hon. B. Barlee: On the face of it it's a good question, but on close examination perhaps it is not. I'll tell you why it is not. There are up to 15 members on the council. Fifteen members cannot adequately represent all facets of the artistic community. So probably 40 or 50 members should be on the council. That is unwieldy, as the member probably well knows. There are weavers and other parts of the artistic community who are certainly not represented on the council. So we would be open to all sorts of criticism, because the major players in the arts community would be represented on the council. It does provide a problem to government, and I'm certainly sensitive to that problem. The government as a whole tries to represent the smaller players in the arts community -- I think this is very important -- whereas they might not be well represented with a council of 15. It's a very, very delicate sort of operation. We're aware of this, and we're trying to communicate with the arts community at large through this council. Hopefully they will represent everyone. That does not always turn out to be the case.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I understand what the minister is trying to say. I don't agree with a couple of his conclusions, though. I raised the issue of equity in second reading on this bill. Would these funds be distributed equitably between the smaller groups and the larger groups, or is it going to be dominated by larger groups to the exclusion of smaller groups? It could be. Those are all options. My feeling is that it could just as easily happen outside of the government. People have their own agendas, in any case.
If we're arguing that the establishment of an Arts Council is going to provide the community with some independence and the opportunity to manage their own affairs, and if by bringing forth the legislation the minister is saying that they'll be able to do it better than the government -- that's obviously why the bill is here -- then why do we now question whether or not they'll do it effectively? Either we believe they will or we believe they won't. If we believe that they're able to manage culture and arts in British Columbia, that they'll provide for the cultural community and the arts community, that they'll make sure that the funds are distributed equitably and in a reasonable manner, and that they're going to have independence from the government, then let's give it to them. Let's say: "We trust you. You're being appointed for these reasons. Go do your job. Part of your job is to set that policy."
I don't see that we're giving them independence if we're going to hold onto the policy strings. We're going to say: "You guys go ahead and dole out the grants, but you can't establish the policy as to how that's going to happen; you can't establish an arts and culture policy for British Columbia." It would seem to me that the biggest benefit and the biggest reason for creating the Arts Council would be to remove that policy from the confines of the minister's office and the ministry, give it back to the community and say: "You people set it up on your own."
I'm sure there are always conflicts. I'm sure that if the minister expanded the council to 50, another 50 groups would pop up. It would be the weavers of silk as opposed to the weavers of wool. We know how that works. I don't think you could ever have everybody involved in it, but you have to have some representatives. If you choose the people to sit on that council correctly, and if you choose them for their talents and ability to work with people and to provide leadership, I don't see that as being a huge problem.
I'd like to know what this council is going to do. Is it going to be out there taking over responsibility for all arts and culture? If it is, then in my mind it should be allowed to develop a policy. If it's not, let's say so.
Hon. B. Barlee: I can see that the member has spent some time thinking about it; so have we. Frankly, there are a number of duties and certain powers that are allocated to the council. One of these important duties is that they control the cash; they control the cheques that go out. The cheques go out to local arts councils. Where they go is determined by the chair of that council, not by the minister -- and perhaps that's better.
Getting the arts community together is a very fragile sort of operation, because each member of the arts community is
[ Page 13869 ]
probably convinced that their particular part of that community is vitally important. I agree with that. As you stated, they may not be adequately represented with a council of 15 people, and I don't think they are. So again it comes down to latitude and the ability to.... Some of that is covered in the bill under subsections 3(1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c). I think we've anticipated that.
I don't say that it will work perfectly. We have to watch it very, very closely. There are people on the Arts Council who may want to push their own particular agenda, and we're aware of that as well. That's why we have to have this discretionary power.
[11:15]
R. Kasper: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery and in the precincts today we have 60 elementary students from the Mill Bay Elementary. They are joined by their teachers Mr. Grant Mellemstrand, Deborah Holley and Rich Ready. Also joining them are some parents from the Mill Bay and Cobble Hill areas. Will the House please make them welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sorry the debate isn't going to be more exciting for them. I'm sure they'd rather listen to the minister tell some of his great stories. I know that the students in Fort Langley have always been impressed by his history stories, so maybe afterward we can go out and have a chat with some of the students and tell them all about this building and the history of B.C. I'm sure it would be interesting.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just don't agree with what the minister is saying. I understand his concerns and the issues he's raising, but I think that if you're going to give the independence to this group to do the contracts and give the grants, it would be nice to have them establish an arts and culture policy for British Columbia. I'd like to see that. The minister feels that it better rests with the ministry, I guess. We'll just have to disagree on that one.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member's partly right. We have a slight variance of opinion, not a lot. The act essentially sets out the mandate, but the job of the council is to do three things: they carry out the planning, they come up with a mission statement and they develop a business plan. Under subsection 6(1)(a) of the act, the council annually assesses the state of the arts in British Columbia and reports to the Legislature on their findings. I think this is very important. They will, hopefully, report for the good of the community as a whole. That is an area where I think it does answer some of the questions the member is asking.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I was satisfied to leave it there, but I'd like to follow up on a question asked by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, because the minister has just indicated that there's a requirement under the act to file a business plan. I'd like to get him to refer to that, because I've been looking for exactly that under section 2 of this bill, and I don't see any requirement for the new Arts Council to file a business plan. In fact, it's one of the questions I tried to raise during second reading debate: wouldn't it be useful to have -- and perhaps section 2 would be the appropriate section of the bill in which to include this -- either a mission statement or a business plan for this new Arts Council put right into the legislation so that we could understand what this Arts Council is supposed to do? I think the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is quite right: there's got to be a concern here about the independence of this body that the minister speaks of, when at the same time the ministry he is heading is going to be responsible for providing all the administration.
I'd like to ask the minister for some clarification on that previous point. Could he also address this question: is the ministry going to be making any special efforts to ensure that the independence of the Arts Council is not compromised by the fact that the ministry is providing all the support staff and administration, and that it's not going to be simply guided by the very adept bureaucrats within the ministry he runs and directed by them? We know they are competent individuals, but we don't want the ministry directing the activities of this so-called independent body. What special efforts are going to be made to ensure that autonomy?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's essentially why this act has been put in place and why we're debating it. Certainly there is a certain amount of discretionary power, I guess, of the minister, but my appointment of the 15 members of the council is.... We took care in appointing the 15 members. As I said previously, these 15 members come from all political aspirations and preferences, which is typical of the arts community; there's not much doubt about that at all.
I think that we have to have an understanding that they do come out with a business plan, and that they do assess the state of the arts, essentially, at the end of the year and report back to the Legislature. That, in turn, I think, safeguards our ultimate goal: the arts community across Canada is more or less under siege, with rare exceptions in any of the provinces, and I think we all realize this. Certainly it's under siege from the federal government, to a degree which surprises me. When I look over the funding generally across the Dominion, in the other nine provinces, it has been going down dramatically. The arts community -- and the member well knows; he's very familiar with the arts community -- is under fire, and it's an easy area to cut for the public, until the public thinks of it rather closely. You will find that the arts community actually attracts more paying customers than the sports community. I'm a great follower of hockey and some of the major sports, but the arts community outstrips them significantly, and it's very important to the fabric of British Columbia.
So, as I say, this isn't a perfect bill; in the arts community there is no perfect bill. I think we all understand that, because everyone wishes their own particular sector would have more say and more influence, and so on. So those 15 members are members at large; they report back at the end of the year to the province and I think will make some probably critical statements of the state of arts -- they usually do -- and we will have to respond to those statements again in the House. So again, as I say, it isn't a perfect act, but it is an act that I think is probably long overdue. It concentrates not only on this rather fragile part of our artistic community but on an economic impact of the arts community as well.
[ Page 13870 ]
D. Mitchell: I don't disagree with anything the minister has just said, but I would like to ask him a specific question on section 2: where is the requirement for a business plan in this legislation? He's referred again to it -- the requirement for a business plan. I simply ask: where is that requirement and what is the requirement?
Hon. B. Barlee: This must be very boring to the students above -- but stay with it. If you can stay awake long enough, I'll tell you a story afterwards.
So this is basically covered in section 6(1), "Report and Financial Statement." Subsection 6(1)(a) says.... Subsection 6(1)(b), I think, refers to it perhaps more specifically: ". . . an annual report on the status of arts and culture in British Columbia during the preceding fiscal year, and (b) a financial statement showing all money allocated by the council" -- and again, the operative words there are "by the council" -- "during the preceding fiscal year."
D. Mitchell: The minister has referred to another section of the bill -- section 6, which provides a post-audit report to the Legislature on its activities; that's fine. That's only right; every government-funded body should do such. But I'm asking about something different -- which is a business plan -- a pro forma business plan which will describe the function and perhaps the mission of this organization, which is not really all that explicit in the bill. He's referred to the term "business plan." Am I to conclude that when he refers to a business plan, he's talking about the financial report or the annual report that comes to the Legislature after the fact? Because we're not using the same language here. I'm talking about a business plan, much like a business establishes before it goes to the bank to seek lending. Does the Arts Council have any business plan before the government seeks to fund it, which I think we should do under this bill?
Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that is answered under section 6(3): "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information" -- which would include a business plan -- "or advice the minister may require." So it gives me some latitude. The member should certainly realize that we would ask them to supply us with a business plan that is adequate, and we would go over that like the gnomes of Zurich.
D. Mitchell: I have another question for the gnome from Penticton. He's referring to a section of the act that says: "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." What he is saying, I suppose, is that although it's not explicit in the bill, we're assuming that he may have required a business plan. Hon. Chair, could I ask the minister if he could table a copy of the business plan in the committee today?
The Chair: It's not appropriate to table documents in committee, hon. member. But we've chased the students out, I notice.
D. Mitchell: As we can't table documents in committee, would the minister agree to provide members of this House with a copy of the business plan that he may have required to establish this Arts Council, before passing this bill?
The Chair: We've almost lost our students, hon. minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, they're filing out -- in fact, some of them are running out, and I can understand that completely. But it's not because of the last question, certainly.
First of all, the council has not been formed. There are 15 members. We've gone over the list. Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure. I don't think I want to put the egg first, but I'm not sure I want to put the chicken first, either. I'll pass on that statement. I think it is adequately covered. I'm a relatively good business manager, and I think the member will probably agree to that. It says: "The council...must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." I will watch the activities of the council very closely, and I think that will be covered. It certainly is part of our long-term business plan.
The Chair: The minister keeps wandering on up to section 6. I would bring the committee back. Hon. member, we're on section 2 -- and we have no students left.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try to take that into account.
Section 2 deals with the establishment and purpose of the Arts Council. It's a fairly important section of the bill. The minister has said that he doesn't want to see a business plan established, and he hasn't requested one because the Arts Council is not established yet. Maybe that's prudent, although it's going to be interesting to know when he does what that business plan might look like. Presumably, the ministry must have contemplated what a business plan for this new public body might look like, but the minister doesn't want to discuss that in committee today. That's unfortunate. He's talking me out of supporting a bill I want to support.
The minister has also referred to section 6, which raises some interesting questions about the independence and autonomy of this Arts Council. We will get to that when we deal with section 6.
When we deal with section 2, section 2(c) says that we're going to be seeing an Arts Council that is "neutrally administered." Could the minister tell us what he means by the phrase "neutrally administered"?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I think I can. When I look back at my other boards and councils, I do not appoint members with political partisanship in the back of my mind. I appoint members -- and that goes right back to my agricultural days, as the member next to you realizes -- who may or may not be, in fact quite often are not, supporters of this government. I've been very, very careful of that. Whenever I've examined an individual, that is not foremost in my mind at all. There are some friends of the government on some of these councils. I remember that on one of my councils in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was a marketing council essentially, 13 of the 16 members were certainly not social democrats. They were Conservatives, Reform, Liberals, you name it -- but they were experts in their field.
Frankly, when I look at the list of individuals we are considering, a number of those individuals are certainly not of my political persuasion. The intent of this legislation is that it will be neutral. There is no political agenda. I don't believe it has any place in the arts community, as the member probably well knows. The arts community is under seige right now, and this is an attempt to make their job easier and to value their
[ Page 13871 ]
advice to the minister. As I say, we're kind of drifting into section 6 again, and we will discuss that at length, probably, in section 6 -- or perhaps, at leisure, I don't know.
[11:30]
I can appreciate the remarks by the member, who is quite familiar with this area of governing in the cultural community. But, as I say, it is not tightly drawn. I don't think the bill should be really tightly drawn, although sometimes you're asking me to tightly draw it and at other times asking me not to.
D. Mitchell: The minister has referred to the language in section 2, which is about a "neutrally administered" process -- clearly unique language in legislation brought before this House. I think what the minister is saying is that, unlike most of the other boards, agencies, councils and commissions established by this government, this one is going to be actually neutrally administered. It's a tacit admission of the practice of this government in terms of stacking those boards of agencies, Crown corporations, councils -- whatever public agencies -- with persons of one clear partisan affiliation. Some might call them hacks; I wouldn't go that far. The minister should be commended. This minister in particular should be commended for actually trying to put into a piece of legislation the principle that this publicly funded body is going to be part of a neutrally administered process, and I commend him for that. I only wish that his colleagues -- the other members of the executive council -- would go this far and adopt this kind of language. That would be really refreshing. But, of course, we can't expect that, can we, hon. Chair?
Under section 2, we're talking about the funding for the Arts Council. The minister, I think, would get agreement from most members of this House that the cultural industries of this province are underfunded. There's no doubt about that. Has the minister given any consideration to formula funding for the arts in British Columbia? We talked about that yesterday in the context of the tourism industry, when we were in second reading debate on the new Tourism Act. The cultural industries contribute quite a bit to British Columbia. I don't know if the minister has at hand the millions of dollars of economic activity generated by arts groups, theatre groups, dance, music, drama -- all of the various cultural industries which are subsidized mostly by the artists themselves, through the low salaries that they take. They generate significant economic benefits; they're an engine of the economy of British Columbia. Would it be possible in British Columbia to ever see -- perhaps through this funding through the Arts Council that's being established here in this bill, in section 2 -- a percentage of the revenues generated by the cultural industries reinvested through this Arts Council back into the arts groups in this province?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a rather unique experience to be flayed and congratulated in the same statement, virtually -- which I appreciate, by the way.
Formula funding probably is more applicable to tourism than it is to the cultural community, for several reasons; the member well realizes this. Formula funding is much easier to track, to assess and to monitor in the tourism industry, because we go by retail sales in the tourism outlets; we go by hotel occupancy; we go by a number of things that can be tracked very easily. It is not so easy in the cultural community. As we well know, a million dollars goes further in the cultural community than in any other sector of society at large. There is no doubt about that at all, and all the studies have indicated that. But I think we have gone a step in the right direction.
Our funding to the cultural community came up about 19 percent this year -- from about $20.5 million to about $24.5 million, which was very close to 20 percent. This was a departure from the norm in Canada. Mind you, I think that we were underfunded, and that's no secret. I think that will become the essence of my intentions as the year rolls on. I try to represent that cultural community to government, cabinet and Treasury Board, and point out the necessity of having this window of British Columbia healthy and active. Essentially, that's what they are.
The publishing and film industries are important. Some of those are deemed by the public to be more important than others of the small players. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I have a background in publishing, and both of us have a background in writing, of course. I don't have that knowledge in certain parts of the larger cultural community. Not that I'm not interested, but there are so many parts to it that it is a very intriguing puzzle. There are people who are well versed in that area.
Section 2 is intentionally evenhanded, as the member stated. When I look over all of my boards -- and I do that quite frequently -- I find a number of individuals.... People from various of my boards have said: "We're not New Democrats. Why did you appoint me?" I said: "Because you're an expert in your field. You make my job easier, you make government's job easier and you make government's job run. Essentially, you complement government." If we do a good job in those areas, I'm not going to pick up on an individual who is politically correct and appoint him to a board because it's politically correct.
I did allude very briefly to formula funding, but perhaps my allusion to it was too brief. I don't think formula funding.... It would be very, very hard to track. It would be a tiger I might not be able to control -- not that I want to control; I'm not a controller. Essentially, formula funding would be dangerous, whereas funding in tourism, for instance, at 1 1/2 percent of gross revenue increase, would be relatively easy. You can track that; it can be bulletproof. It cannot be bulletproof here. It is almost impossible to track.
So I would prefer to go the route we're going now: taking an assessment of the cultural community at the end of the fiscal year, and seeing whether we have been successful and which areas are endangered -- whether it's the film community, publishing or whatever -- and then allocating those funds through the advice of the council, which then must report to me if I ask them to report to me on specific areas.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that was a very enlightening set of discussions -- in particular the minister's comments about the value of appointing people with expertise to boards, commissions and agencies. I can't agree more with his philosophy and the benefits that accrue from it.
I encourage the minister to make that speech at the next cabinet meeting and indeed at the next caucus meeting. Perhaps British Columbians would be far better served than we have seen from some other ministers. I must admit, in sitting here and reflecting upon it, I can't ever remember getting up in this House and chastising that minister for the appointment
[ Page 13872 ]
of a political hack, so I think credit goes to the minister in that regard. I hope some of that talent and wisdom flows down the front bench to my far right and is absorbed by the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, and sticks to a couple of other ministers along the way.
At the risk of engaging in a lengthy response from the minister, I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask him, specifically with respect to section 2(b). Section 2(b) states that one of the purposes of the Arts Council is "providing persons and organizations with the opportunity to participate in the arts and culture in British Columbia...." -- fairly wide-ranging and general. I understand that there had been some discussion back and forth within the ministry with regard to making a distinction between professional and amateur people who deal with.... It's particularly in regard to training grants. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me if the government is still looking at that. Or is that going to be left up to the council to decide?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's true that we have, again, some latitude in section 2(b). What we've attempted to do is to take advice from the professional, the semi-professional and the amateur parts of the cultural community. That, believe me, is quite a job.
By the way, I'm not a gnome from Penticton. I was at one time, perhaps, but I'm now a gnome from Osoyoos.
What we're trying to do is look at the most fragile parts of the community, whether they are professional or semi-professional artists, or even amateurs, and say, on their advice -- mostly on the advice of various people, not just the council but the arts community at large -- that this area does need some tender, loving care; it needs some attention, which it has not received in the past decade and in the past half-decade.
If we were to concentrate specifically on each word in this bill, you would find it's kind of wide-reaching. Indeed it is, and intentionally so. I think the dollars are up towards the amateurs in the arts community. We are trying to encourage, in the flourishing in the arts, people who are starting out in the community, and of course they always start out as amateurs. It's a balancing act.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just wanted to try and determine if that was the position of the government with respect to this section: whether or not they're intending to differentiate between the two, or if the funds are going to flow to both groups.
I have a second question on section 2(b), or on section 2 in general. Community arts councils which currently exist and are funded on a per capita basis.... Is that going to continue? Or will the council be administering this in some other way?
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, the funding to the community arts council is up between 30 percent and 40 percent. As you know, those are arts councils all around the province. Some would be in Kelowna -- a very active council there; some would be in the lower.... They're all over the province, essentially. They have felt that they have been the forgotten part of the agenda. Frankly, we have looked very, very closely at the work they do. Most of it is work that's done gratis, which we think is important. So we have rewarded them in many cases, where people have been on community arts councils, some of them.... I can think back to my days in Kelowna -- and I'm talking to the member opposite, of course, from Kelowna West. Some of those people have been on those councils for literally decades, really decades, and they've seen very little improvement. We felt that it was perhaps long overdue. Again, we did not play politics with this. Kelowna is held by two different members of the opposition, and we fund equally in all of those areas. So I think that's where we're going in this particular area.
G. Farrell-Collins: I apologize to the minister, hon. Chair. I didn't catch the middle portion of his response, which I think was what contained the answer. If he could just very briefly.... I was discussing an item with another member. My question was whether the funding is going to still continue to those community groups on a per capita basis. Or is that structure changing?
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, the money is going up, as I say, between 30 and 40 percent. The basis might change slightly, but that would depend upon the advice we receive from council. Basically it's the same -- significantly more funding, perhaps targeted better, but on the advice of the councils.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just to clarify that, what we're saying is that the Arts Council will now be responsible for determining the structure of the funding that goes to community arts councils. Would they be making recommendations to the ministry and then the ministry would be setting those rates, or would the Arts Council itself be setting those rates?
[11:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: We realize that no one in the arts community wants surprises, so we will be looking very, very closely at the suggestions from the Arts Council. As I say, we made provision for a significant increase in funding, and hopefully this will right some historic wrongs -- or, shall we say, areas in that community that have been ignored.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I'm not asking so much a question on the philosophy of whether or not they deserve funding; that's not my point. I guess what I'm trying to find out from the minister is the process by which the decision-making as to how those community arts councils are funded will take place. My understanding, in my reading of the bill, is that section 3(1)(b) says: "The council must allocate the money appropriated annually for the council by the Legislature...." My reading of the bill is that this new Arts Council will be the people who are actually determining the levels of funding -- whether it's per capita or done by some other means -- and that it won't be the gornment. The government will grant them a lump sum, and the Arts Council will make those determinations on their own.
Can the minister tell me if that's correct? Am I misunderstanding it? Is it the ministry that is in fact going to be taking advice from the council and then making those grants?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, with the way the bill is drawn up, the Arts Council can vote and change that formula. Per capita is the present practice. They may decide, in their wisdom, to change that formula. They are allowed to do that. I may ask them at the end of the year, under section 6, to report why they changed that formula and whether or not it is working adequately, but that's basically what will happen.
[ Page 13873 ]
R. Chisholm: I think back a couple of years to when they were trying to build a building for the arts in Chilliwack. They were having problems with the federal and provincial governments when it came down to grants and that type of thing. I am wondering what role this council will play in capital expenditures. Will they be there to recommend...? What does the minister see this piece of legislation doing to enhance and help these councils when it comes to dealing with this level of government and with capital projects?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a good question. I do realize that there are parts of the arts community all across the province who believe that the infrastructure does not satisfy the artistic community in that specific area. Chilliwack is an example, but with the federal government and the provincial government on a one-third, one-third and one-third basis, $65 million dollars went into the arts community at large. They prioritized this: some went to Prince George, some went to other areas, some went to downtown Vancouver, some went to Victoria and so on. Frankly, I think that was a step in the right direction.
There is another step, however, which is that every constituency can apply through community grants. Community grants are quite important -- again, that's a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, and there's a maximum on that, of course. We put what we assume is a maximum of $100,000, unless it's a jurisdictional area, which would mean a Chinese cultural centre, for instance. Some of that can be addressed through B.C. 21 community grants. But I would caution the member not to ask for more than $100,000, because your chances of getting that are extremely slim.
I would also mention to all members that I am chair of community grants, and I do sign those off. I have made available to members who have asked for them the various grants that have been allocated right across the province. I've tried to be evenhanded in that, and I think I have been. I was cautioned the other day by a member of one of the opposition parties who said that I was over $18,000 in my riding over three years, which is true. I was somewhat.... So I then went back to that party and said: "I just examined it all and you're correct, but you are all over $30,000 each, so I will make that adjustment this year." I heard no more about it, which was rather interesting, because the books were indeed open. By the way, I said that the only two members of this House who did not receive any grants at all both happen to be NDP members. So you can't accuse me of political biases, at least not obviously.
R. Chisholm: I have to agree with the $65 million in community grants. I have no problem with that. But I'm just wondering what this council's role will be when it comes down to recommendations for capital grants and what role it will play when it comes down to expenditures. That's the answer I was trying to look for. And how do individuals approach this council?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. They do not actually have a significant role in capital funding of infrastructure, but they could approach -- as any lobbyist would approach -- members of the council and say: "Look, I would like you to address this." They, in turn, may present that to us. But the council is there essentially to operate the funds provided by government for the artistic community as a whole, and that does not include capital projects. So for the capital projects route, they would have to go through the federal infrastructure program, which is essentially over, or through community grants, which still carries on from year to year.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Mitchell: I don't know, but I think there's a possibility we can get this bill done before noon. I'm not sure.
On section 3, I have just a brief question, and I ask the minister for a brief answer. Section 3 outlines the powers and duties of the council, and the final section 3(2) says: "The minister may specify other powers and duties to be exercised and performed by the council." Can the minister offer any assurance that he or his successors in office won't use this section to interfere with the independence or the autonomy of this council that the minister has talked about? If any future minister can add on any specific powers and duties, it doesn't say a lot for the independence of this council.
Hon. B. Barlee: That section cannot conflict with sections 1 or 2, although it is a rather generalized statement -- "The minister may specify other powers and duties to be exercised and performed by the council" -- whereas sections 1 and 2 have laid out specific areas.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
W. Hurd: I just want to pursue a few more brief issues with respect to School District 36, the district of Surrey. The minister may be aware that there was an article in one of the
[ Page 13874 ]
Vancouver daily newspapers on April 24 with respect to concerns about the standards for portable classrooms and the learning environment in the classrooms. A number of observations were made. There was a suggestion of security problems for students and teachers, concerns about fire hazards, disease transmission in such an overcrowded environment, air quality in portable ventilation systems, a lack of temperature control, shortage of washrooms, etc.
I wonder if the minister could take a brief amount of time to discuss what the ministry standards are for portable classrooms since, as we acknowledged during the debate yesterday, there are going to be at least 40 or 50 of them added to schools in the Surrey district. I wonder if the minister could just take a moment to elaborate on the ministry standards for portable classrooms with respect to some of the issues that were raised by Janice Chapman, a member of the Richmond District Parents' Association. I know the same kinds of concerns exist with the parents' association in Surrey, of which I attended a meeting not too long ago. I wonder if the minister could give us an idea of what the standards are for portables in the province.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, I've met with the parents' association from Surrey. They made all their representations to me, plus they presented me with photos of each school showing the portables on site and a map, which also conveyed information to me. Theirs is a very reasonable group, I might add. They made a very information-filled presentation to me.
The standards that we have for portables. We expect that a portable will have a life of about 15 years. The newer portables that I have been in are solid, well lit and well serviced electrically. Typically, however, they do not have washrooms, because to hook plumbing, water and sewer into a series of portables is a very expensive undertaking. Typically, students who are in portables have to go into the main body of the school. There are some portables that have washrooms. Being small, with a lot of exposure to the atmosphere compared to the volume of the building, portables tend to get cool in winter, unless you're expending a fair amount on heat. They tend to get pretty warm in the summer, inasmuch as few, if any, of them are air-conditioned.
Are they an ideal place of learning? No, they are not perfect by any means. Are they, for the most part, reasonable in terms of the quality of educational space that they present? Yes, they are. I've been in dozens and dozens of portables that are certainly adequate as learning spaces. If we could afford to replace more, we would, but as the member knows there is a debt management plan in place that limits the amount of capital that can be spent on schools. That means that some portables are going to have to be around longer than we would like them to be. Then again, as the member also knows, there are short terms, which could run to probably ten or 15 years, where you know there's a bulge in enrolment moving through the system and where portables are a proper solution. You use portables during that period.
W. Hurd: It seems to me that some of the problems that have been identified invite solutions that wouldn't necessarily cost a lot of money. Surely ventilation is something that can be investigated with respect to a portable classroom. With respect to the location of portable classrooms on various school grounds, there is concern, also, about the location of fire hydrants and adequate fire lanes. That invites a series of questions about the extent to which the boards, particularly the Surrey board, would liaise with the fire department and other officials on the location of these buildings. As the minister will know from his discussions with the parent advisory group in Surrey, there's clearly a great deal of concern about the buildings themselves -- about the temperature control, the washrooms and rodent control.
I just wonder whether some of these issues that have been identified invite solutions from the board or invite some directive from the ministry that might at least make the environment a little more pleasant. For example, surely ventilation and concern over location for fire purposes are things the ministry could develop a set of guidelines for. That would at least mean that some of the problems in the portable classrooms could be corrected and identified according to some ministry standard across the province.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm certain that all boards out there realize their responsibilities with respect to the management of their portables. They cooperate with the municipalities, fire departments and fire commissioners. If there was anything unsafe or unacceptable to the fire department or fire commissioner, it would be changed. If the member has some specifics with respect to a situation with portables in Surrey, I would suggest that the issue first be raised with the board in Surrey. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then perhaps the board in Surrey should request a meeting with me to see if anything can be done to resolve its problems.
With respect to items like ventilation, again, the district has its own operating and maintenance funds that are provided in the block. If it is very inexpensive to provide some ventilation for portables, then a decision the local board can make is to apply some of their local operating and maintenance funds to do that kind of thing.
They could also put requests for minor capital through their system. They would have to determine the priority that they themselves put on those items compared to all other items on their capital request list.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the answer from the minister, but the concern that I'm raising relates to the perception of parents and some educators that in fact portable classrooms do represent a two-tier system of education in the province.
I should advise the minister that the Surrey MLAs were asked to attend a meeting on May 12 with the Surrey council. The meeting was requested by Surrey council and the board of trustees to address some of these serious education issues in Surrey. I expect that I will joined at that meeting by the members for Surrey-Green Timbers, Surrey-Whalley and, of course, Surrey-Newton, two of whom are members of the executive council. I think the issue of portables will be put forward as a concern.
Earlier in this debate, the minister strenuously rejected the notion that portable classrooms represent a two-tier system of education. He felt that the same level of instruction and the same atmosphere for learning could be maintained in a portable classroom compared to a regular school. That invites the question: what is the ministry doing with respect to communication to convince parents and educators in fast-growing districts that the number of portable classrooms does not represent a two-tier system of education? Clearly that perception exists in the districts of Surrey and Richmond. Since the
[ Page 13875 ]
minister feels strenuously that the same levels of education excellence can be applied or secured in both learning environments, I wonder what steps the ministry is taking in Surrey or Richmond to convince parents, educators and the board that the number of portable classrooms does not represent a two-tier system of education?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I think that if the member stops and reflects, he would realize that of all things that lead to quality of education, the facility itself probably ranks far down the list. The quality, skills and capabilities of the educator who stands in front of the class have the greatest impact on the quality of education. It can certainly be the quality of the curriculum, the quality of the organization of the school, the funding that is provided generally, the capabilities and the laboratories, the size of the class, and way, way, down that list would be the particulars of the learning space.
I would doubt that the particulars of the learning space would affect 1 percent of the quality of education. Where the two-tier education system comes in in spades is the belief of the Liberal opposition that charter schools and the voucher system is the way to go in British Columbia, that we won't worry about all children, that we will worry about only those select few who will get into a charter school and receive a much higher level of education -- they think -- than in the regular public school.
What goes on then in the regular public school is apparently of no interest to the Liberal opposition. What they would like is a nice two-tier system where there are distinct levels of education, a high level of education for the elite and another level of education for the rest of the young men and women in public education.
Don't try to sneak away from that two-tier argument into making a fallacious two-tier argument related to whether or not 10 percent or 12 percent or 20 percent of the children in the district are in portables. It is furthermore hypocritical to stand up and constantly criticize the government for spending day after day after day in the House -- criticize, criticize, carp, carp.
I don't think the member opposite has approached me once in three years to lobby for a school. He has not approached my office for a meeting that I can think of offhand; I may have to stand corrected on that. Then, when it comes time to make a bit of hay in estimates, he starts to talk as though he really does believe in government, he really does believe in investment, he really does believe in capital expenditures and he really does believe in debt.
So he believes in debt in this room, but in the larger he doesn't. He wants us to cut, cut, cut -- not build, not spend. Where were his views with respect to a two-tier education system? Where were his views with respect to the number of children in portables in that period? They didn't even exist. Suddenly here, where he thinks there is an opportunity to go on the record as being in favour of schools, in favour of replacing portables, in favour of investment and in favour of taking on debt, he doesn't hesitate to do so.
W. Hurd: You ask a simple question and you get an even simpler answer. I suppose the answer....
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Hon. Chair, I'm attempting to do the minister a favour. I've been asked, as I indicated to him, to attend a meeting put together by the Surrey Board of School Trustees and the city council. I hoped, on the basis of these estimates, to be able to take to that meeting on May 12 some sort of commitment from the minister that he recognizes there's a perception problem out there with respect to portable classrooms and that the ministry is going to do something in the current set of estimates to correct that perception problem.
[10:30]
He's indicated that he doesn't believe portable classrooms have virtually any impact on the quality of education. In that regard, he may or may not be correct. The problem for the minister in Surrey is that that's not the perception parent-teacher associations and the educators have.
As much as I look forward to the opportunity on May 12 of going to this meeting and vigorously defending government policy, and defending the position of the minister.... I'll correct that; I don't look forward to it, because it won't be possible. It won't be possible to attend this meeting on May 12 and defend the minister's views on portables.
I'm hoping that the minister will make the job easier for all the Surrey MLAs and launch some sort of initiative, some sort of communication program, to convince the parents who phone my office -- and, I'm sure, his colleague's office in Surrey-Newton -- that in fact the number of portable classrooms in Surrey does not represent a two-tier education system.
When I take a copy of the Hansard Blues to the meeting on May 12, as I surely will, they will not be reassured by the minister's rhetoric about taxing and spending and borrowing, and by the kind of rhetoric we've heard in the House for the last three months. They'll want specific answers to those concerns.
I certainly hope the minister will avail himself in these estimates of some concrete statement, some commitment, that his ministry will launch an effort to convince the parents, the educators and the Surrey School Board that in fact they are not the recipients of a two-tier system of education just because of the number of portables in the district. Then I can happily convey that information to the meeting on May 12 that I attend, advising them that in fact they are not being victimized because they live in a fast-growing district. I'm sure the government members in Surrey will do that anyway. Unfortunately, based on what I've heard in this set of estimates, it will not be possible for me to do so.
Again I ask the minister, since he doesn't believe, as he's indicated, that the number of portable classrooms has any impact on the quality of education: what specific steps is the ministry going to take to convince the parents and the educators in those districts that in fact they are not being victimized by the number of portables that exist on school sites throughout their district?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: When the member goes to that meeting on May 12 and reads from the Blues, I think it would be a good idea that he makes sure he reads all of the statement that I have made. Just in order to ensure that that happens, I think I will take the precaution of sending my own copy of the Blues, suitably underlined, to the parent group in advance of that meeting so they'll have a good, balanced view.
[ Page 13876 ]
In the larger sense, the issue is whether we are meeting the needs of not only Surrey, but every other district. And are we meeting them, both on the capital side...? Because beyond being just a learning place, a school can be a community place. It can be a place where many elements and many organizations in the community can come. I like the community school model. I like to see it used in the evenings and on the weekends, so having good-quality, permanent space is an important objective.
In the overall plan, however, we know that we cannot always afford that, and for some periods of time we need to rely on portables. A top-quality education can be obtained in a portable classroom every bit as much as in a permanent classroom. It's just that there are some additional benefits that permanent structures and permanent buildings have.
The member could remind everybody at the meeting -- and I will provide him with the information -- that over the past five years $379,324,419 has been supplied to the Surrey district to meet very real enrolment pressures. This is the largest by far in the province and is nearly double the next-highest district.
In the elementary system, a very small percentage of children are in portables. It looks to me, by eye, from reading the elementary chart, to be about 5 or 7 percent, which is an acceptable figure from the view of the average across the province. In the secondary system, the numbers are a bit higher, it looks like it might be 15 or so percent. We have been closing ground over the last three years with respect to the percentage of students in Surrey in portables. The member could also bring up at the meeting that the increase in funding over the last five years to Surrey has been 44.8 percent for operating versus an enrolment change of 24.5 percent.
Whatever the member wishes to portray to the participants of the meeting.... If he portrays the facts and if he would also indicate directly to those parents -- if he will not do so in this House -- that he supports additional dollars going to the capital program, that he supports more schools and that he supports a higher debt load carried by the province in order to build the schools that this member, I am sure, is going to go to that meeting to support....
W. Hurd: I appreciate that dissertation from the minister, but as a precaution he may want to provide an additional set of statistics to his colleagues who are attending the same meeting. I'm not utterly convinced that the minister's assessment of portable classrooms will necessarily be agreed to by the trustees and by the people attending the meeting. I promise to get him the minutes of the meeting. I'm sure he'll welcome the opportunity to comment at that time.
Just a few other questions. I wanted to ask the minister about the purchasing policies in the various districts in the province. The minister will be aware that the auditor general did an assessment into the '93-94 fiscal year of the purchasing policies of the various districts in the province and identified some serious gaps in the way in which material supplies were purchased.
I just wonder if the minister could take a few moments to outline what steps the ministry has taken to tighten up those policies with respect to board purchases. Has it developed a draft set of guidelines for purchasing not only supplies but also land acquisition for new school sites, which is one of the major costs of every school district? That invites a further series of questions. Maybe I could just ask the minister for a progress report on the auditor general's concerns with respect to purchasing at the board level.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The auditor general continues to be in discussion, I understand, with a couple of districts. We have offered some assistance to that process. At the present time, that offer hasn't been taken up, so the discussion remains between the auditor general and a couple of districts -- Surrey being one of them.
The largest issue that the auditor general raised was the potential for centralizing some learning resource acquisition. At the present time, we put out funds through the block and into trust accounts in each individual district. Then the districts go ahead and purchase learning resources. The auditor general is of the view that there could be a significant saving, perhaps as much as 25 percent, if the ministry were to play a central purchasing role for learning resource materials. We continue to contemplate and discuss that possibility. I am raising it right now with particular respect to some technology money in the current budget -- $10.7 million extra this year that Treasury Board granted Education for purposes of an injection of technology.
The system has been talking about, and I have been encouraging a discussion of, a centralized purchasing role so that we could purchase some kinds of technology, some computers and software on a provincewide basis by striking deals with the manufacturers. That has the potential to save a lot of money, plus bring more coherence to the system in order to make sure that the software runs on the machines and that the machines are compatible with each other.
There are some issues that the member for Prince George-Omineca raised with respect to making sure that we maintain some fairness for local suppliers. We're trying to find a path where we can accomplish on the one hand some of the major savings the auditor general has indicated, while on the other hand avoid inadvertently or accidentally sideswiping many, many local suppliers.
W. Hurd: The minister will know that the auditor general identified a number of difficulties with the existing purchasing in the districts that he surveyed. No clear set of goals or benchmarks, if you can use that term for what was expected of the purchasing by the districts, was established. I think the report was actually quite critical of the way in which some districts purchased throughout the province. Perhaps some of the initiatives the minister has identified to centralize the purchasing of new technology and learning resources might alleviate that problem.
That invites a further discussion about land acquisition costs. One of the issues that comes forward, particularly in Surrey, is that some of the school sites sit on very valuable pieces of land that could be converted for other uses at a much higher cost per acre and another site possibly identified for a school, particularly as new housing developments come forward.
I can think of a specific example in my own riding, where the district is sitting on some of the most valuable land in the city of White Rock. It has been identified in the long-term community plan as potential for a high-density town centre. The land carries with it a potential development value of many, many millions of dollars, yet under the current system
[ Page 13877 ]
the district has no real incentive to rationalize that particular school site and possibly identify alternatives to it.
I wonder whether we have a situation where it might be possible to convert land for other purposes where buildings currently sit and consider acquiring land or working with a developer to build a new school in an emerging subdivision; and whether there is enough flexibility in the system to invite the board to identify those opportunities, consider selling sites and recognize the fact that the proceeds, which could amount to many millions of dollars, might be better utilized in other land acquisition efforts within the district. It just seems to me that in some of the lower mainland districts the boards are sitting on very valuable pieces of property which may or may not make sense from an enrolment standpoint, but there is virtually no incentive for them to make those kinds of business decisions. The money just reverts back to Victoria, and the boards don't realize any benefit from it.
[10:45]
I highlight the example in White Rock, because around this particular school site there is immense downtown development going on. Clearly, if the district of Surrey were able to sell off that site, realize the considerable economic benefits and then apply the funds to other schools -- who knows? -- they might be able to eliminate some of the portables or provide an altogether new school site.
So I just wonder whether the ministry is aware of some of these implications from the soaring costs of land in the lower mainland and whether we might expect, during the current fiscal year, some sort of study or review of that particular policy.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the past several years, in fact, the policy would permit Surrey to sell that high-value land in White Rock and then approach us with a site purchase plan in another area or a couple of other areas. At the present time we are allowing the funds to, in effect, be recaptured within the district for that purpose.
As for the larger issue of site acquisition, we have under consideration the potential for acquiring sites on an ongoing basis when developments are occurring. I've had that proposal under active consideration for some time -- that is to say, a dedication.
W. Hurd: I have just one further question with respect to the whole issue of site acquisition. Clearly, as some of the fast-growing districts like Surrey and Richmond have developed, some of the schools that were previously almost in rural areas are now, in fact, surrounded by major development. I just wondered whether the ministry had worked with some of the fast-growing districts on site acquisition or on this type of initiative whereby some of the high-value sites could be identified for possible redevelopment and then the resources committed to other purposes within the district, including new schools replacing portables.
Is there any type of initiative from the ministry or is that all within the purview of the district? And would it be up to them to present some sort of business plan to the ministry with respect to rationalizing some of those school sites that occupy high-value land, which would be prime for redevelopment?
It just doesn't seem to be happening, in my assessment. The schools continue to stay where they are. Ostensibly, the districts claim, it's because they're required sites for schools. But I kind of suspect that if the land was rezoned, particularly in a town centre, there'd be considerable resources available to the district.
Can the minister tell me whether or not the business plan would have to come forward from the district? Or does the ministry look at some of these situations at all with respect to a property acquisition strategy for the lower mainland districts? That's my final question on that issue.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We certainly encourage districts to think creatively, and we have approved a number of situations where sites were in fact redeveloped. The West Vancouver School Board took a decision within their own community that caused a lot of debate in that community, but I authorized them to in fact close down one school and redevelop the entire site -- sell it off in lots and develop it -- and the funds they raised from that enabled them to just about, as I recall, completely pay for a new school at another site.
So I would encourage any district to look at the inventory of lands they have and to look at if they've got older, more mature areas where the enrolment is declining. I would encourage them to close some schools, redefine their catchment areas, make sure that the existing schools are taking full advantage of the space that is there, sell off some of the sites for any kind of redevelopment and acquire the moneys into provincially controlled capital reserve. We would then approve the new sites against that reserve. I would encourage districts throughout the province to look very carefully at all their assets with that in mind. To me that's just good asset management.
L. Fox: I just want to ask the minister for one point of clarification on his very encouraging statements in terms of disposable capital assets held by respective school districts.
In the past, I think it's been a major limitation to good, sound business decisions in school districts, because the moneys from all capital assets that were disposed of went to the province. In many cases I don't believe the province got true value for some of those assets, because there was no perceived gain, in terms of the local school district's financial position, by the disposal. It was more getting rid of a liability than achieving some monetary gain for that respective school district.
The minister just stated that it would go into a provincial trust. The question then would be: would those funds stay in a pot and be allocated at some future time to that respective school district or would they just go into an overall provincial pot that might be siphoned off by another school district?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If a district disposes of a property and realizes some capital from that, it goes into a capital reserve that the district holds, but which cannot be spent without my approval. Last year, in order to address part of the enrolment pressure problem, I ordered all districts to look at those capital reserves as rainy-day funds. We got a lot of enrolment pressure. I said: "Now it's a rainy day." I ordered all of them to draw down their capital reserves by two-thirds to be spent on projects within their district.
So if a district had a good, large capital reserve to draw down on, it made it more likely that I was going to approve a project in that district. Then it would require less new provin-
[ Page 13878 ]
cial money; they had to draw down their own capital reserve. Anything that was even left in that capital reserve is still held by the district and still will, eventually, be spent in the district. It's just that they need the minister's permission before they can spend it.
L. Fox: Just one follow-up question to this. I'm pleased to hear of this process. I think it's a good decision and provides the tools for school districts to be responsible managers of their land banks and their capital assets.
The one further question I have.... I'm not sure if the minister is able to discuss it at this point, because one his associates has just tabled a bill in the Legislature called the Growth Strategies Act. A major limitation to some of these business decisions has been zoning and the planning of a respective municipality. As the minister will be well aware, that has a lot to do with the value that's achieved with that piece of land and how it could eventually be developed -- if indeed the municipality wants to see it developed. What kind of discussion has taken place between this minister and the Minister of Municipal Affairs around those kinds of issues? Does that legislation accommodate cooperation between school districts and municipalities in order to address these long-term growth problems, particularly of urban school districts?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the specific bill that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has recently introduced, Education has not played a role -- even a consultative role -- in that particular growth management strategy bill. As I said earlier, I have been contemplating and discussing the general aspects of site acquisitions that relate to pressures on the capital side in growth districts for some time. At various times, I have had discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on that issue, but not on growth strategy or growth management.
M. Farnworth: I have three areas that I'd like to explore: school construction, operating funds, and land and legislation. I'm here to do my annual request for school construction funds for School District 43 in my riding. I'm quite pleased with the progress that we've made in resolving the backlog demand of the past few years. Currently under construction are South Port Coquitlam high school, Town Centre high school and the joint Douglas College project. These are meeting the pent-up demand for high school places. The last high school was constructed in 1972, and there was a 20-year backlog.
My question is around Gleneagle high school, which is the third high school that is required in our district. It is of critical importance to relieving some of the pressure on the Port Moody high school and Centennial in Coquitlam. I am urging the minister to construct that as quickly as possible. Planning and site preparation have already been done, and basically it's waiting to go to tender. I am urging that any moneys that he has available.... I would view that as the number one priority in our district.
[11:00]
In terms of middle schools, I am quite pleased with the progress that we've made over the last couple of years. We've opened Kwayhquitlum Middle School and Citadel Middle School. Scott Creek is currently under construction, and so are a number of elementary schools. But there's one elementary school, Bramblewood, that is also of vital importance in the burgeoning Westwood Plateau area, which is, as the minister is aware, the fastest-growing area of the province.
The population out our way has grown at a rate of over 5 percent a year for the last eight years. In terms of population, my riding is now the second-largest riding in the province, if not the largest. We are absorbing incredibly high numbers of students -- more so than just about anywhere. In fact, in the 1991 census, 25 percent of the riding was under 14 years of age, and that has not decreased. I am asking the minister to consider Bramblewood Elementary School, as well as a number of site acquisitions. If the minister could answer my questions, particularly around Gleneagle, I would appreciate that at this time.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member for Coquitlam is the physical size that he is, I often pay very close attention to what he says, out of a sense of intimidation.
Coquitlam, of course, has had a real growth challenge. Coquitlam has grown by 5,300 students over about five years -- an extremely high growth rate, as the member has suggested.
I am pleased to say that on a provincewide basis in the 1992-94 period, through the budgets that this government brought in, about $165 million in capital has been dedicated to assisting Coquitlam in managing that growth. As a result of those investments, we have been able to keep up with the growth in elementary schools. But by the time we look a couple of years ahead, a new surge of growth coming in could leave us as much as about 700 students over capacity. I know that within your district it's.... We have overcapacity in some of the older districts and crying undercapacity in some of the new rapidly-growing areas.
The district priorities they have this year are one, the Gleneagle Secondary School completion and two, the Bramblewood Elementary completion. They are looking for some planning money for Terry Fox Senior Secondary and Summit Middle School. I have indicated to all who have asked that we will have a fairly tight capital budget year coming up, but within the funds that I do have I am looking at the projects that are underway. Incidentally, we were able to acquire several school sites in Coquitlam out of last year's budget, so we are probably in not too bad a position with respect to sites. With respect to the funds that I do have available, I will be assessing the needs throughout the province. I will also be assessing what is underway throughout the province. Coquitlam will be treated fairly in that whole process.
M. Farnworth: A number of concerns are sometimes raised by people concerning school costs, that somehow schools costs have been spiralling out of control and if only we reduced school costs, we would have more money available for school construction. It's my understanding that school construction costs have come down over the last number of years, particularly around elementary and high schools. Is that not correct, minister?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, the notion put out by some that school construction costs are spiralling out of sight is a fiction. We fund schools by a unit construction rate, and depending on the program needs at the school and enrolment
[ Page 13879 ]
at the school, that goes through a formula which comes out with so many square metres of space, and then the capital allocation relates to square metres of space.
In 1991-92, the elementary unit rate was $1,150 per square metre. We are now, four years later in '94-95 -- a big jump here, member -- at $1,152.50. So that was up $2.50 a square metre out of $1,100. But here's the good news: for '95-96, we're back down to that $1,150. So over five years, you'll see that it's gone from $1,150 to $1,150. I wouldn't exactly say that school costs are spiralling out of sight.
At the secondary level, you might also be interested in knowing that in the same period, it went from $1,200 to a maximum of $1,350 in '93-94, and back to $1,240 for '95-96. So that's an increase from '91 to '95 of $40, out of $1,200.
Furthermore, member, you'll also hear from time to time some false news put out there about the consequences of the fair wage. I have some specific examples for you. I'm sure that many members on the opposite side here -- I can see their ears perking up as I speak.... For a typical elementary, the actual tendered cost, the award, for an elementary pre-fair wage is $1,219 per square metre; post-fair wage -- it happens to be East Elgin in Surrey -- $1,179 per square metre. So the actual tendered cost came in $40 per square metre lower under fair wage than before.
At the secondary level, there are two projects, again, of comparable size. The pre-fair wage one happens to be North Surrey Secondary -- unit rate, $1,342 per square metre; post-fair wage, on a project, you will be pleased to hear, in Coquitlam -- Riverside Secondary -- the tender came in at $1,196 per square metre. That's $146 per square metre lower under fair wage than before. So the whole fiction that somehow prices are spiralling out of control, driven by fair wages, is a canard -- if I can use that language in these eminent circles. It's a falsehood.
M. Farnworth: For a minute there, when you said "canard," I thought you said "Cunard," and I thought, gee, we're going on a cruise...."
Interjections.
M. Farnworth: Hey, my dad worked for Cunard....
Anyway, I'm glad you raised that issue, because one of the areas of concern to me has been that as we've been building schools and catching up on the demand, the criticism has shifted from not building schools to: "How much does it cost?" Over a five-year period, then, we can see that basically costs have remained stable and that we have, as most people were expecting, been doing more with less and saying: "Get more out of the same amount of money that you've been allocated." I think that that's a policy we need to continue.
I would like now to switch to the funding formula, because this has been an issue of considerable concern and interest in my district. Our district was one of the ones that asked for a review of the funding formula for operating moneys. At that time there was concern among the big districts that somehow they were getting to the bottom in terms of funding -- 74 out of 75 or 75 out of 75. That caused a great deal of concern. It is my understanding that the funding formula currently in place, if I'm not mistaken -- and I would ask the minister to correct me if I'm wrong -- is that every single child in every district throughout the province receives exactly the same amount of dollars allocated for their education, that the district up north or the district in the Okanagan does not get more money to spend on an individual child than, say, a district in Coquitlam.
An Hon. Member: That's already in Hansard.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member says it has been answered. Well, I'm repeating the question because I know how much difficulty....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
M. Farnworth: Anyway, I'd like him to confirm that that is correct and that the only additional moneys are on the basis of, for example, ESL; that in the case of ESL, every student who qualifies for ESL would get the same amount of money; that there is not one district getting more money on a per-student basis for ESL; and that it would be the same for special needs and for aboriginal children. Could the minister confirm that for me, please?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: A question of a similar nature was asked, so I'll be brief here. The funding is, in fact, identical in every district. There is no such thing as the district that is number one or the district that is number 75. The amount per student -- at each of the primary, early intermediate, late intermediate, graduate -- is identical in every district. The amount in career planning is identical. The base amount for a primary school or an elementary school or a secondary school is identical. The amount for a district is identical. The amount for English as a second language for each student is identical. The amount for each child in special needs -- there's a base amount for the program, but then the incremental amount for each child -- is identical. The admin budgets and the cap that I put in place are an identical percentage for each district.
The only place in which the funding varies from district to district relates to physical factors, the location of the district and the average educator qualifications and experience -- the salaries. There's a salary adjustment. There's a geographic adjustment for distance from Vancouver for shipping, communication and transportation costs. There's an adjustment for small secondary schools, if they happen to have them. There's adjustment for community schools and facility planning. There is an adjustment for operations and maintenance which varies with the size of the physical assets, and the transportation, which varies with the size of the district and the number of students who need busing.
There's also a factor whose name I am intent on changing, because it is called the student density factor. I think this connotes the wrong things.
An Hon. Member: Is that between the ears, or...?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In fact, it has to do with crowding, because of either overenrolment or, possibly, underenrolment. Where there's overenrolment, the core parts of schools are, so to speak, overutilized. They have, therefore, more wear and tear, and there is a special allocation for that. But other than each of these -- where there are specific, valid reasons
[ Page 13880 ]
why a district varies from another -- the funding is identical in all 75 districts.
[11:15]
M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. minister. The importance of that answer is in the fact that the primary variance is, in fact, teacher salaries. If you have a district that has a young teacher population, the teachers enter at a lower salary scale than in a district where most of the teachers were hired 15 or 20 years ago and are at the high end of the salary increment scale.
It would be fair for me to say, then, hon. minister, that when people say we are the seventy-fourth or seven-ty-fifth district, they are misleading the public. They are not telling the entire truth. The reason I say that, hon. minister, is because the chair of the school board of the district of Coquitlam is quite happy to meet in private with the minister, myself and other MLAs from the area and say that she accepts the ministry's rationale and funding formula and quite agrees with the way that it is applied throughout the province. But when she goes back home and talks publicly....
L. Fox: Is she running for the Liberals?
M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, yes, she is, hon. member -- not in my constituency but in the next-door one.
She repeats these untruths, these misleading statements that somehow the students in our district are getting less money spent on their education than in other districts. I just wanted to make sure that the truth came out in Hansard and on the record so that everyone is aware that no student in Coquitlam has less money spent on their education than in any other district in the province.
For my final question and comment, hon. minister, I am going to make my annual call for legislation allowing municipalities to identify school sites on private lands in the community plan so that we can avoid the problems that were encountered in areas such as the Westwood Plateau, where large blocks of land were sold without any provision being made for school sites. That was done by the Social Credit Party. It was a grievous error, which was pointed out at the time, that would come back to haunt the taxpayers of this province. The result was that whereas we might have been able to set aside sites at the time the overall plan was done, instead we were having to purchase sites at full market value at the time the school was constructed. That, as we've seen in the recent price escalation in the market that has existed over the past five years, literally trebled and in many cases quadrupled the cost of site acquisition. That is a substantial cost, as you know, in the school construction program.
What municipalities want to do is to be able to identify sites at an earlier stage of the process, particularly in municipalities such as Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, the high-growth areas. Quite often it's not small subdivisions that are taking place there, but large subdivision plans of 1,500 or 2,000 units, which may require more than one or two schools. So it's critical that the municipality can get in there as early as possible to identify the sites that are required. Over the long term, that is going to save the municipalities, the school districts and the province a great deal of money. So I will repeat my call to encourage the minister in the direction of legislation in that area.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issue of site acquisition has been broached a number of times during the estimates. I have indicated that I think there is some substance and merit to the idea. It is under active consideration. There have been discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to see whether or not we might bring about some kind of a coherent, sensible pre-planning process which would allow funding for sites to be acquired before land values escalate out of site.
I think it was indeed an oversight of the previous administration, when Westwood Plateau was sold, not to have reserved sites not only for the environment but for schools -- for future public use. It indeed makes not too much sense to sell a public asset only to have to buy it back within a reasonably short period of time.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to get back into the estimates at this point in time, particularly given the last question by the member for Port Coquitlam. The minister is well aware, I'm sure, that under the Municipal Act, municipalities have the opportunity at subdivision over three lots to take, either in land or cash in lieu thereof, 5 percent of that dedication. There may be some merit in looking at expanding that type of policy to other forms of development in terms of setting aside school sites or cash to acquire those sites.
I guess one thing we have to understand in that is that indeed those individuals who are then going to buy lots within that respective subdivision are indeed paying for the cost of that school site -- or park, as the case may be. There may be some opportunity to even amalgamate those two acquisitions and provide both park and school site in the same location or with the same dollar. That would give you 10 percent availability to do that.
I think there's a very important issue here that we must be cognizant of and that is the right for individuals to receive compensation for any land that is planned for new school sites if it's anything other than these kinds of acquisitions. We saw an initiative last year where a clause came into a municipal bill that would have essentially taken away the need for municipalities to compensate individuals for land that was planned for future need for infrastructure. I think we have to be very cognizant of that principle; I'll leave it at that.
I want to get back to section 21 of the School Act, to where we started discussion last evening. Since last evening I've renewed my information on this particular section.
When in fact the BCTF became a union back in the late 1980s, the concern of school boards was the ability to transfer individuals from administration back into the classroom, over giving them large cash settlements or whatever if they wanted to make a change in the administrative team or if, in some cases, the administrator wanted to go back to the classroom rather than stay in administration. Because of unionization, the issue of seniority took on a new prominence in the BCTF. It became apparent that administrators were not considered teachers by the BCTF; they were considered administrators.
Hence, in 1989 the administration of the day brought in section 21. In reading some of the dialogue, the intent appears to be to provide school boards with the opportunity, in the process of downsizing the administration team, of placing the administrator back into the classroom.
The Gold River case was an interesting one in that the board sought to do that. It was contested by the BCTF; it went
[ Page 13881 ]
to arbitration. The board lost in arbitration and subsequently lost in an appeal. While the intention of this section in 1989 was to give boards the flexibility to downsize their administration. In fact, the act did not do for the Gold River case what it was intended to do when it was put before the Legislature in 1989.
So when I talk to the administrators in my school districts and the board members in school districts that I represent, there is a real concern because there are a number of rural administrators who did not teach in those respective districts. We have guidelines being set by the minister in terms of capping administrative costs, yet the school district's hands are tied because they can't downsize the administration without paying large settlements. They can't put them back in the classrooms.
We have come to an impasse in terms of how the boards react to directions given by the minister in regard to capping their administration costs. So with that bit of background for the committee, I welcome the minister's comments on this issue.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issue is well known, and there are a variety of views on it -- views that say we should legislate, etc.
To the best of my recollection, I wrote the employers' association -- or perhaps my deputy did and copied it to me -- that we support the collective bargaining process that the K-to-12 employers' association is now embarked on and that they should address this issue. It is a legitimate concern, a legitimate issue, and it should be resolved at the bargaining table as opposed to through legislation. It is, of course, a bit unusual that someone who has gone to management positions has a right to opt back into a union position, but there are merits that can be argued both ways.
So it is not my intention to proceed with any legislation to change the situation from the status quo, but I do urge that the employers' association take up this issue with the appropriate bargaining parties and try to resolve it.
L. Fox: Just another observation that I have with respect to that -- and I don't discount what the minister is saying.... In reality, while the administrators are teachers first, because they have made the choice to even try administration, they perhaps are now being penalized. You may have a situation where individuals thought they would like to be administrators, applied for jobs in other school districts and then decided that that is not the career path they want to choose. And now they are caught out. They no longer have a job; they now have to go to the bottom of the totem pole -- wherever they choose to go -- and try to find a job. That particular problem is preventing many people from trying and applying for administration.
[11:30]
The other side of it is that the administrators are not negotiated with the BCTF. They are outside of that bargaining unit. So who is going to argue their principles at the table? Certainly it isn't going to be the BCTF, because they're the ones that have fought the issue in Gold River. Who represents that small percentage of school teachers who -- as I point out -- are school teachers first before they choose to move forward and try an administrative field?
I suggest to the minister that while the principle of negotiation is always a fair principle to follow, in this instance I believe it's necessary for the government of the day to look back at what the intent of section 21 was. If this legislation brought forward did not meet the intent, then we should look at what we can do in order to meet that intent and be fair to all those concerned. That's what we're talking about here: a process which is fair and reasonable. Presently the administrators are not in that circumstance.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The genesis of the problem.... Part of it, of course, relates back to a decision that the previous administration made with respect to severing principals and vice-principals from the BCTF, which might or might not have been a wise move. It certainly has caused some problems. But I would point out that in industry as a whole, when someone from a collective bargaining unit decides to try out management -- if they decide to put on the management hat -- they have given up their union position, and then it sometimes becomes difficult for them to come back in, or if they do come back in, they've lost certain seniority. Where teachers or administrators decide to move from district to district, they lose seniority and cannot regain it by moving back.
People know what the rules are. They've been in place now for some seven years. People are fully aware of the consequences of the decisions they make, and they go ahead and make those decisions. It's not that I disagree with the member that there is an issue that deserves to be debated and resolved, one way or the other, but I am indicating that I do not have the intention of moving forward legislation to solve the issue. The BCTF is not going to make the argument on behalf of the principals and vice-principals, but the principals and vice-principals -- in their organization -- can make their points to the K-to-12 employers' association. The employers' association can attempt to modify a collective agreement as they see fit, but the government is not going to step in to solve this particular problem.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up on one point, because I may lose it over lunch. If we take a contracting firm or a contract electrician's services and it's a unionized shop, it doesn't have to be an electrician that applies for the manager's job. If they choose not to move forward, the company can go outside and hire someone to fill that position.
In the education system it's totally different. We accept the principle that an administrator should be a teacher; we support that at present in British Columbia. This is limiting the opportunities of smaller districts in rural parts of the province to encourage teachers to apply for administrative jobs. This is one real problem that exists in education that doesn't exist in the private sector: they're being penalized.
We'll carry on with the rest of it after lunch.
I move that the committee rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: I'm encouraged by your optimism.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:35 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]