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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 13
[ Page 13883 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
D. Symons: I'd just like the House to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Campbell Atkinson in the gallery. I think he's one of our most faithful watchers of events taking place in this Legislature, and it's good to see him again this afternoon.
J. Sawicki: In the gallery today I have some guests from the Polish Combatants, Victoria branch No. 29: the president, Pan Hlycak, and the vice-president, Pan Lukaszewicz. They're here today to acknowledge what is one of the most celebrated of Polish holidays, because on May 3, 1791, the Polish Sejm, or parliament, passed the first codified democratic constitution in Europe. It had as its ideals things that we take for granted today, like the supremacy of parliament and the separation of judiciary powers from legislative and executive. Regrettably, Poland's neighbours felt threatened by this democratization, and the reforms were destroyed by force one year later. But the fact that Poles all over the world continue to celebrate the constitution act of 1791 is, I think, a reminder to all of us that the institution of parliament is forever fragile and warrants our defence. To my guests today I ask the House to join me in saying witam w parlemencze, welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: Seated on the floor of the Legislature behind me today, I'm pleased to introduce Rev. Peter Rolston, who was MLA for the constituency of Dewdney from 1972 to 1975. I'm very pleased to see Peter here today. I must say that this hair colour is much improved since those days. I think you'll agree with me -- a very handsome white shock of hair there. I'd like the House to make him very, very welcome.
L. Krog: On behalf of my friend and colleague the member for Nanaimo, I would ask the House to welcome a kind of couple we don't often welcome here, and that is newlyweds: Heather Mitchell and Wayne Bell from Nanaimo, who are good friends of the member for Nanaimo. Would the House please make them welcome.
T. Perry: One of the newest and hardest-working constituency assistants in the province is here, and since he can't be introduced in the usual way, I would like to bid him, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, welcome. I am not sure if his name is of Polish extraction or not, but I'm sure he is also celebrating the victory of Polish democracy today. Please join me in welcoming Norm Gludovatz, the constituency assistant for Vancouver-Burrard.
J. Dalton: I am pleased to introduce three constituents, all from North Vancouver; all live in my neighbourhood, I'm happy to say. Dr. Len Hendriksson of UBC is joining us this afternoon. Two people who live even closer to my home that I'm pleased to see today are Tim and Ina Hollick-Kenyon. Some members may know Mr. Hollick-Kenyon in his better form of Chilcotin Charlie, the former editor -- I say former because, unfortunately, the publication is no longer in print -- of the Big Creek Bugle. Please welcome all of them.
B. Simpson: I am delighted this afternoon to introduce Mr. Hardal Johal, president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which is a very large society within the Indo-Canadian community -- in fact, it's the largest society. He is also president of the Ross Street Temple. Mr. Johal is one of the leaders of the Indo-Canadian community whose reputation, I can attest to, goes as far back as the Punjab. I was there last month and everybody was recognizing the significant contribution Mr. Johal has made to the preservation of the Sikh culture in British Columbia. By the way, he was one of our very important advisers on introducing Punjabi into the schools. Mr. Johal is here today as a delegate to the convention of the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour. I ask all members of the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. Johal.
H. Lali: I, too, would like to take the opportunity to welcome Mr. Johal to the Legislature. This past weekend I had the occasion to visit the Ross Street Temple, as I do on many other occasions, to see the workings that go on there, and the amount of work that the volunteer committee puts in at the Ross Street Temple. I think all of us as members sometimes brag about the long hours that we have to work on our jobs, but I tell you, I sure wouldn't want to trade my job for Mr. Johal's job. I would like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview in welcoming Mr. Johal.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to welcome to the galleries today 47 grade 10 students from Earl Marriott Secondary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher, Marielle Haack. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon, there are some delegates who are attending the Canadian Federation of Labour convention at the Coast Harbourside Hotel here, which, as we're all aware, is a hotel owned by union pension funds. These delegates are from Local 963 of the Operating Engineers: Philip Bitz, who is the business manager, Frank McKenna, who is the president, and delegates Lyle Berg, Ed Maxwell and Tim Chester. Would the House please make them welcome.
MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. A. Edwards: It is certainly my pleasure to put before the Legislature this bill that contains a substantial number of amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act and consequential amendments to the Land Act. These amendments accomplish a moderate change. The amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act and the Land Act clarify jurisdiction for tenuring industrial minerals. Other amendments in the act will allow my ministry the flexibility to deal better with emerging land use issues and to improve its capability to enforce requirements under a mineral tenure system that manages the extent to and rate at which mineral resources are both acquired and developed in our province.
Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[2:15]
[ Page 13884 ]
ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY CORRECTIONS STAFF
J. Dalton: The NDP's mismanagement of the corrections system is well documented by the recent happenings at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. However, it seems that Surrey is not the only Fraser Valley institution that is suffering such mismanagement. Now there are allegations of sexual harassment between guards as well as between guards and inmates.
To the Attorney General. His government brags that it has instituted large-scale sexual harassment awareness campaigns in the civil service. Did these prison guards receive such training, and if not, why not?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that the member is in fact referring to allegations of personal harassment.
J. Dalton: To the Premier.
Interjections.
J. Dalton: There are so many allegations of this nature, hon. members, that we can go to every cabinet minister.
In light of the Premier's recent bungling of sexual harassment allegations, will the Premier ensure that there's a better process in place for the investigation of such allegations than what we've witnessed to date?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member must have wax in his ears, so I'll just repeat what the Attorney General said.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
V. Anderson: More than 370,000 people are on social assistance in British Columbia. Under the NDP, the number of people receiving social assistance is the highest it has ever been in this province. Yet people who are trying to get off and stay off social assistance are being encouraged to stay on. Such was the case of Greg Woodward in Kelowna, with whom we have had personal contact.
Would the Minister of Social Services explain why social workers are encouraging people to stay on social assistance rather than supporting them to get off that assistance?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Liberal opposition has changed their research techniques by going from the Province newspaper to the British Columbia Report. I'd say that's a real improvement for them.
Let me just say that the information contained in the British Columbia Report is accurate to a certain extent, in that the letter written to the person who applied for income assistance that the hon. member opposite is referring to had the information provided to him and the other person attending, saying that they would indeed not be eligible for benefits. I think it's fair that you do the full reporting on this matter.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: We have been in personal contact, not just through British Columbia Report or any other report -- personal contact. We have been advised that a social worker in Kelowna advised that if Mr. Woodward moved in with his girlfriend, social assistance would pay him $200 a month more because he would be considered his girlfriend's dependent. Could the minister explain why Social Services workers are encouraging people to get more money from social assistance rather than become independent? Mr. Woodward himself would like to know the answer to that question.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Clearly, the member opposite doesn't have an understanding of the system. Social workers don't provide benefits; financial assistance workers do. I'm allowed to say this because it has been reported publicly by Mr. Woodward; otherwise the member opposite would be in violation of the confidentiality rules. Mr. Woodward was advised in writing that the cheque would be reduced -- he would not be eligible, and his partner's cheque would be reduced. The member opposite knows that.
RICK HANSEN ROLE IN LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Education. Apparently, other than the Liberals, all other members in this House are tremendously proud of Rick Hansen and the inspiration that he has been to millions of Canadians, young and old. We recognize as well the valuable contribution that he will make in the life skills program. Perhaps the minister can tell us what role Mr. Hansen will play in the ongoing development and promotion of the program?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Thank you for the question. Indeed, the Liberal opposition has raised an issue where they apparently feel that there is some impropriety with respect to a contract I signed with Mr. Hansen to develop some materials for the career and personal planning course. Mr. Hansen approached the ministry with what I thought was a very good idea: to bring forward a learning resource that dealt with facing challenges, overcoming difficulties and setting goals. I thought: what better person could we possibly have for the youth of British Columbia?
The Liberal opposition apparently believe that I should take Mr. Hansen's excellent idea and turn around and offer it to other potential developers of learning resources. It might even lead to -- who knows? -- somebody from Alberta or from the state of Washington or somewhere else developing this. Entirely inappropriate. There has been an implied criticism of Mr. Hansen and his organization by the Liberals, which I believe is entirely inappropriate. We will be delivering a quality resource package that will be of enormous value to the young men and women of British Columbia, and we will put it in all 1,750 schools in this province.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary?
L. Fox: One of the six skills taught as part of the life skills program is thinking critically. I'm wondering if the minister could arrange to have Mr. Hansen give a special briefing on this element of life to the official opposition. Could the minister please arrange to have Mr. Hansen, if he is willing, explain to them the difference between critical thinking and unthinking criticism?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it would certainly be in order to have the Liberal opposition take a refresher course in
[ Page 13885 ]
this area. I think, as well, that they could use a great deal of help in overcoming challenges, for example; I could speak to Mr. Hansen about that.
Let me say, seriously, that we bargained hard and ended up with an extremely good partnership arrangement between Rick Hansen Associates and the Ministry of Education, and we have developed and delivered an excellent resource to the system.
NEW DIRECTIONS AND CANCER CARE
L. Reid: British Columbians today enjoy the finest cancer care in the country.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
L. Reid: In a decision cancer workers themselves seriously oppose, the NDP government has said that it will totally reorganize the way that cancer care is delivered in this province by placing cancer care centres under the control of regional health boards. The B.C. Cancer Agency says this decision will cause the dissolution of an excellent cancer care and research system, and that it shows the NDP government has contempt for the health care of the people of our province. My question is: will the minister commit to stopping this fragmentation of cancer services which will only hurt the patients of this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There will be no fragmentation of services. The B.C. Cancer Agency will be responsible for ensuring that high-quality clinical care is delivered to cancer patients regardless of where they live in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: I trust that the minister will indeed attempt to answer this question. This regionalization of cancer service governance has been conducted in secrecy, is untried and will result in finances being taken away from cancer care. The B.C. Cancer Agency itself says that under an NDP government hell-bent on the New Directions health reform agenda, all provincial health agencies will suffer. How can this minister jeopardize the quality cancer care now received by British Columbia patients with his experimentation in New Directions health care?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There will be no reduction in funding allocated for treatment of cancer modalities in the province. The B.C. Cancer Agency will be responsible for ensuring that high-quality care remains. I would just finally say that our commitment to cancer care, I think, is well demonstrated. I think the member herself was present when the Premier announced last spring $750,000 of new money for cancer research in this province.
VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services, and it's to do with video lottery terminals, one of the scourges of our modern times. [Laughter.] Video lottery terminals are no laughing matter. This is a machine, a technology, that is encouraging gambling addictions among British Columbians -- young British Columbians, in particular. This new minister's predecessor was encouraging the use and development of legal video lottery terminals and was trying to force them on communities throughout British Columbia. Is this minister -- who has now had a chance to review the file on his desk, I'm told, and is now ready to answer some serious questions about VLTs -- prepared to encourage, like his predecessor, the spread of video lottery terminals in communities throughout the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member asks an interesting question. Yes, I'm prepared to answer the question. The answer essentially is: I told you I'm new, and you know I'm new, and I'm looking at this issue. This is an important issue for the people of British Columbia. The government made an announcement, and there has been a reaction. There have been hundreds and thousands of letters and telephone calls and many meetings with people across British Columbia. This issue is on the front burner, and in the next few weeks I will be making a decision in terms of the consideration that I've gone through and the deliberations that I'm going through at this time.
D. Mitchell: I know that this minister, when he was a private member of this House, was very, very concerned about the expansion of gaming in our province. Will this minister be able to tell us today whether or not there are any municipalities in British Columbia that have made representations to him in favour of VLTs, and whether the government has conducted any public opinion research to show whether or not British Columbians are in favour of video lottery terminals being in place in municipalities throughout the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member should know that when you do a poll on these kinds of issues, people sit on either side of the fence. There have been polls on this issue. There are people who support the introduction of video lottery terminals; there are people who oppose them. There are charities that have been asking the government of this province to enhance gaming. Would the opposition and the members opposite tell me that they want to take money away from the charities and from the services that are provided to people by the charities? The important question for us is whether or not the opposition out there has the interests of British Columbians at heart. This is an important issue. A decision will be made after due consideration.
[2:30]
DECISION RE CT SCANNER FOR NORTH ISLAND
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Health. Patients in North Island have been waiting since the government was elected for a CT scanner to be placed in their community. The community funding is there; the required specialists are there; the demand is there.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
W. Hurd: The only thing that isn't there is a commitment from the minister. Can the minister tell the House why he has
[ Page 13886 ]
delegated a decision like this to the regional health board, knowing that it will be one of the most divisive issues the community has experienced? Why won't he take the responsibility and the accountability to make this decision, as he has been requested to do by his own government member for Comox?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a new era in health decision-making coming to British Columbia. We're asking regions to make decisions about their priorities in health care and how they're going to be delivered. The North Island Regional Health Board will make the decision on where the CAT scan should be placed, and we will fund it.
Hon. M. Sihota tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the year 1992-93.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call estimates for the Ministry of Education; and in the House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12.
ARTS COUNCIL ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 12; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 3 (continued).
D. Mitchell: We were on section 3 before we adjourned earlier today on this bill. The minister was in the process of explaining why we have section 3(2), which gives the minister the ability to "specify other powers and duties to be exercised and performed by the council." These are additional to the powers and duties that are already listed in the act, presumably, although the minister responded by saying that none of these new powers or duties that he would be wanting to specify would be inconsistent with, perhaps, sections 1 and 2, the definitions or the establishment of the act.
But I wonder if the minister, just for clarification here, could provide some examples. What is being contemplated here with section 3(2)? What does the minister have in mind when he wants to put this kind of clause into this bill, which gives him the power to specify whatever other powers or duties should be exercised by the supposedly independent, autonomous council? Why is this necessary?
Hon. B. Barlee: It gives the minister a little latitude, because we might have effects from Internet on the artistic community as a whole, on the cultural community, and this is something. Things that do impact the artistic community and the cultural community at large are evolving so fast that we have to be aware of that. That's a good question, but I think it does give us the latitude, again, to investigate certain areas that we might not otherwise do.
D. Mitchell: One other section of the bill, section 3(1)(b), says that the council must "allocate the money appropriated annually for the council by the Legislature." Could the minister just explain what this process of allocation would be? How is this money going to be allocated by the council?
Hon. B. Barlee: The council, of course, will draw up an annual budget on that. They will allocate certain sums according to the decision of council, along with some communication with the ministry to make sure that it is rather evenhanded. Then they will allocate those various funds to the various groups proposed by them.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just returned to the debate, so I'm not sure if the line of questioning I am about to embark upon has already been addressed. If it has, I'm sure the minister will advise me very quickly.
The Chair: As long as it's on section 3, we'll all be fine.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it will be on section 3. We'll see how it's going to play. Anyway, I picked up a little of the last comment by the minister, so we may well have canvassed it.
My question here again comes back to the issue of equity across the various arts and cultural communities. If that has been addressed, I would like to hear the answer. I want to see what in here directs the council to ensure that it's one of the priorities, that when they allocate those funds there's some sense of equity.
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a very good question, and it was asked before by the previous member. Equity -- of course, we have to watch it very, very closely. With 15 members on that council, they may or may not represent the smaller sectors of the community. So the artistic community.... We have to be very, very careful that the major players -- the most obvious players would be film, publishing and so on -- do not get the lion's share of the funding provided. So, frankly, we take into consideration other players as well.
Of course, the 15 members of this council will be open to a certain amount of lobbying from the smaller players in the game. Certainly they will be lobbied. As you well know, the arts community is quite adept at lobbying. They are not always successful, but are fairly rational about it.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the minister is saying that it's understood in the legislation that equity must be a prime consideration while those allocations take place. I see the minister nodding his head, so I'm sure that that will be passed on to the council, whoever is appointed. I suppose that the minister will watch for the first little while, and I'm sure the artistic and cultural communities themselves will watch carefully to ensure that that's the case. I certainly hope it is.
Another question I have for the minister is the way the allocation is going to occur. In some way it ties back a little bit to the issue that was discussed earlier by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. The allotment of funds is going to occur annually, and these groups will receive those funds on an annual basis. Will there be some long-term planning process put in place so that they know they can count on a certain amount of money, so that they aren't going from year to year in sort of a reactive mode? Rather, there can be some long-range planning, perhaps some investment, perhaps some discussion: this year we can give your group this much; next year we're going to give more money to this group, and you should plan on spending it over a period of time. Is there some way of allowing for that or determining that within this act, or are they just going to have to wait every year for Treasury Board approval of a lump sum?
[ Page 13887 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: That might be preferable or it might not be. We cannot commit the House, so it's an annual appropriation by the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: I realize that, and I guess it's the percentage funding that we were talking about earlier. I guess that the best we're going to get is a commitment from the minister that rather than rising and falling on a radical basis, the funding levels will be sustained over a prolonged period and be relatively stable.
I'm looking at section 3(1)(c), which talks about the research that could be done. The council supports "arts and culture in British Columbia through the following: (i) public education, research and advocacy. . . ." Who will be doing that research? Will the council members themselves be doing it, will that research be delegated as part of contracts to various people, or will it be done by the ministerial staff that will be working with the Arts Council?
Hon. B. Barlee: That decision is essentially made by council. We do some independent research in the ministry to see the impact of the cultural community upon tourism, small business and so on. But they may want to go beyond that. So they're at liberty to do that if they so wish.
T. Perry: I missed the second reading debate. Rather than take members' time with a third reading debate, I'd like to indulge for a moment to speak to section 3, because it's the meat of the bill. I think it's a very good bill, I intend to vote for it, and the minister deserves some commendation for bringing this forward. As I have said before, both inside and outside the House -- unlike many other members, I have dared to say this outside the House as well -- he previously enjoyed a reputation as something of a hick. There were those in the Vancouver cultural community who used to make fun of him. But he has earned his spurs in the last year with the addition of the extra $4 million to cultural funding in Vancouver this year. He has earned his spurs and the respect of the cultural community provincewide, and I think this bill shows partly why he's not only willing to recognize the importance of culture in British Columbia....
Interjections.
T. Perry: I hear people laughing, but he really has. A few years ago I would have thought that it was laughable, too -- the idea that the member for Okanagan-Boundary would have supported culture, other than mining or prospecting lore. But in fact he has learned. It shows that politicians can learn; even someone like the minister can learn -- and he has really earned his spurs. I can't help but point out that not all members of this assembly feel the same way. The leader of the Libcreds -- the official opposition -- recently stated his opposition to cultural funding in response to requests to support the federal-provincial infrastructure program, in contrast to the federal Liberal Party, epitomized by Minister David Anderson, who has spoken eloquently about the importance of culture in the economy and of generating a sustainable economy with a lot of jobs that sustain people as well as add vitality to the community. The leader of the Libcreds frankly and utterly opposed that.
I see you pointing to the bill, hon. Chair. I am speaking to section 3, and I do have a question for the minister coming up. I just wanted to record how strongly I feel about this, and how fervently I intend to vote not only for this section but for this bill.
The question is: can the minister give us any inkling of his ability to maintain funding stability in this area in the future? Of course, without funding the council would be meaningless. I think it's something that calls for a response also from the opposition parties -- all of them. I mean, we know that there's one party whose members are absent today which doesn't believe in culture unless it's spelled with a K. But there are other members of this House who are at least sympathetic to the arts. One would like to know: are they sufficiently sympathetic that they would actually provide real support, given the difficulty arts organizations have in maintaining funding?
I can't sit down without celebrating the announcement yesterday of the Dance Centre in Vancouver. I know the minister was helpful in pushing that through the federal-provincial infrastructure program, and the dance community in Vancouver, including my own constituency assistant, a former ballet instructor, will be thrilled -- in fact, are thrilled by that announcement even though it doesn't have the unanimous support of the House.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll accept that left-handed compliment, and it was intended as such. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is an old friend of mine, and he is correct...
An Hon. Member: It's a left-wing compliment.
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a left-wing compliment.
... that I do have a background in mining, but I also am still a publisher -- I'm allowed to keep that -- and I still write occasionally when I have time enough. And I still have a TV show. I'm a member of ACTRA.
An Hon. Member: But you are a philistine.
Hon. B. Barlee: But I am a little bit of a philistine, that's true. At least it's noted on the coast that I'm a philistine. I don't think that appellation necessarily applies in the interior of British Columbia.
[2:45]
As for funding from year to year, we've been fairly successful over the last two years, and I think we will continue to be -- if I'm in this rather unique position next year at this time and answering these questions. As other members of the opposition have noted, it is probably the finest position in government as far as ministries are concerned. I don't think there's much doubt about that at all.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment to section 4(1) standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 4(1), is amended to read:
The Council consists of not more than 15 members broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities of British Columbia appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]
[ Page 13888 ]
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: Just so that it's on the record, the minister is moving an amendment that offers an improvement to section 4, which details who should serve on this Arts Council that we're establishing by this bill. He is moving an amendment saying that the council should consist of not more than 15 members who are "broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities of British Columbia," and of course they're appointed by cabinet. I'm going to have to ask the minister what he means by this. "Broadly representative" is nice language, but it would be nice to define that a little more clearly. I think this is an improvement over the wording in the original drafted bill. It does get at what we need to do, which is to get more specific about who will serve on this council.
But while I'm at it I might as well ask the minister a question. Will the council be made up of artists as well as non-artists? What will be the balance on the council? What will be the balance of membership on the council between artists and non-artists? I think we need to know that, because we want this council to serve the public interest. We want this Arts Council to function well. I think we want to see working artists, working British Columbia artists, on this council. But will there be non-artists as well, and what would be the balance between the two groups on the council, which the minister now says with this amendment will be broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities?
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, I think that's a thoughtful question. Firstly, as far as being broadly representative is concerned, I think that sometimes in the equation, various parts of the province have been left out. I think there should be representatives from the far-flung areas of British Columbia, whether it's the Rocky Mountains, Haida Gwaii, the far north, the Okanagan or the Cariboo. I think they all have something to offer. We are trying to extend that, and definitely that is why this amendment was made. The member picked that up rather rapidly. There is no arbitrary quota as such. Again, I must refer back to the fact that we have to have a bit of ability to choose and to look at the various people and which areas they represent, and whether they represent the broad spectrum of culture at large rather than a specific part of that. There is some thought given to that, as well.
We don't want someone who is.... I won't say we don't want someone, but we will be careful not to go out of our way to choose someone who is specifically an advocate for one specific part of the cultural community. I think that would be a disadvantage to the community as a whole. We are looking at that broad spectrum of representation, as well as a geographic spectrum of representation.
G. Farrell-Collins: As the minister has been talking, I've been going through the bill. Perhaps it's a small point, but in the legislation wherever the word "arts" is mentioned, it appears that "culture" follows immediately behind. Both words are used, not one to the exclusion of the other. I note in the amendment that the minister refers to the artistic community. My assumption would be that the intent is the artistic and cultural community. If it is being stated in the bill, is it the minister's intent to just tidy that up, or does he feel it's fine the way it is?
Hon. B. Barlee: Really, it is not on the amendment as such. We're speaking, probably, on section 5 or section 6; essentially what we are doing is jumping ahead slightly. Arts and culture are used interchangeably in the cultural community, and culture, of course, is the broader term. It includes the arts. But many people think of the arts and they don't think of culture, so we are trying to incorporate both rather than saying "the cultural community," where they might not think we are referring to the arts community as well. That's why both are there.
G. Farrell-Collins: There are numerous references to that. Section 3(1)(c) talks about supporting arts and culture. It's used repeatedly throughout the bill. Perhaps it's semantics, but I just thought, given the minister is putting the amendment in there, that he may want to just change it so it says the artistic and cultural community. I don't believe it says that. It just says the artistic communities of British Columbia, and perhaps you want to change that to the artistic and cultural communities. It doesn't bother me, but I just thought he might want to parallel what he has done in the rest of the bill. Maybe it was just an omission.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly, certainly. It doesn't bother either of us, and I hope that it doesn't bother anybody else who is speaking to this amendment. "The artistic communities," I think, covers that relatively adequately -- not perfectly, but relatively.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister is getting a sense of what kind of contribution opposition members could make if we served on the legislative review committee that brings legislation into this House. We could improve this legislation quite a bit by making it more consistent and explicit.
I would like to ask the minister one further question on this section, which establishes the council, and on the amendment to the section. I asked the minister what the composition of artists and non-artists on the council would be. The minister indicated that he didn't think anyone should serve on the council who was specifically associated with any particular advocacy group on behalf of the community.
I would just like to get some clarification on that, because I might have misunderstood him. It would seem to me that when we get to the next section, section 5, dealing with remuneration, one of the reasons we might want to be offering honorariums to members of the council is that working artists might be on the council. We know that working artists usually aren't very wealthy, and probably an honorarium would be extremely appropriate. Will we have working artists on the council, and what will be the balance between working artists and non-artists on the council? Is there anything contemplated there?
Hon. B. Barlee: There will be working artists and non-working artists on the council from the cultural community. What I did refer to originally -- I think perhaps the member misunderstood me -- is that I don't want a very, very focused lobbyist. I would find it uncomfortable if there were a very focused lobbyist among those 15 council members. I think they have to bear in mind that they represent the artistic community as a whole, and that's what I'm saying. So I think it goes without saying that that's the route to go; that we must take a very, very careful look and make sure it does represent
[ Page 13889 ]
not only the regions but the artistic community on their own -- all the corners of the artistic community, which would be probably 60 or 70 or maybe 100 groups.
Amendment approved.
On section 4 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has made reference to the fact that these people are community.... According to his intent, anyway, they're going to be members of the community -- the arts community -- and they won't be used as a patronage vessel. I know that he's good to his word. I hope that if he moves on to better and greater things -- he says he's happy where he is -- that the following minister follows the same policy. But I do have a question, and it's particularly on section 4(1). There is no mention here about the length of term of office of these appointments -- how long they'll serve on the board. I'd like to know what the minister has in mind and how he intends to ensure that we don't end up with people that are on there for six, ten, 15 and 20 years, like we sometimes end up with in politics -- people that are there for 20 years doing the same job. Perhaps the minister has some comments on that.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a logical question. What we have done is stagger the appointments so there'll be a continuing rotation -- one year, two years and three years. The average term would be about two.
L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: I'd like the House to welcome, please, Mr. R. Simmerer, a teacher who is here with a group of 14 grade 7 students and several adults. Mr. Simmerer comes from Queen of Angels School in Port Angeles, Washington. I'd like the House to welcome them here today.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me if that structure for appointments is contained in the act? I didn't see it. Did I misread it, or is it in regulations?
Hon. B. Barlee: By the way, before I answer that question, I should say I hope our American cousins from Port Angeles are enjoying British Columbia. It's somewhat the same; we're all on the marvellous coast. The statehouse may differ somewhat from this chamber but not a great deal, I imagine.
To the hon. member, the length of appointment will be set out in the appointing order-in-council.
G. Farrell-Collins: What provisions are made for reappointments? Is this at the direction of the government through order-in-council? Will it be done on an ad hoc basis, depending on who's there, or is there some intention to limit the number of terms? When I was looking at the act, I thought perhaps a two-year appointment -- staggered -- with the first group, half of them, being for one year and then the other half for two years; stagger that, then, every two years, and have people perhaps serve a limit of two terms, so that we make sure we have some cycle-through of people, and we don't have people giving up their art and becoming Arts Council members, or staying there too long and becoming stagnant. Can the minister tell us what the plan is for that?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I don't think they'd give up a budding artistic career to meet eight times a year for about $175 a day. They would be on pretty short shrift on that. Calculating that, it would be about $1,100 a year -- no, it would be a little bit more than that, but not much -- and trying to survive on $92 a month would be rather problematic.
These will go through the usual order. It will be one year for some of these people, two years for some and three years for some. I haven't really thought that out. I don't think anybody would be there for life, nor would they want to be. We have found that in the other councils we have appointed, after a certain time people say: "I think I've served my time." There are occasional exceptions to that rule. I can think of some exceptions to that rule in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, people in the arts community tend to revolve a little bit.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll take the minister's word for it. I think it would be best if it were included in the legislation, and if how those appointments would be cycled were clearer. Some people would be very pleased to serve and would wear it as a little badge of honour, and it may take dynamite to get them out of there after a period of time. Having some experience with people in positions like that.... I'll take the minister's word for it. I do think it would be better to have it in the legislation.
I do have another line of questioning in that regard. Section 4(2) mentions that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- generally the minister -- can appoint the chair and the vice-chair of the council. I feel very strongly on this one that the ministry.... It falls back on the issue of independence that we talked about earlier. If you're appointing 15 good people from right around the province who are representative of the arts community and are from a variety of regions and in a variety of different fields, those people would be best able to determine among themselves who should chair their meetings and who should be the vice-chair. The reason is that whoever the chair and vice-chair are, that person has to have not just the confidence of the minister but, more importantly, the confidence of the people they're working with on the council.
I would like to move an amendment to section 4, entitled.... Sorry, I have the wrong one here. It's right in front of me; I should have known it was there.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sure, I'll let the minister answer the question before I move the amendment; that's fine.
[3:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: I can understand why the Opposition House Leader would ask that question. We are following the practice of the Canada Council, for instance, and of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and several other provinces where they do appoint the chair and the vice-chair. That is directly related to the previous question -- from both of you, in fact -- that there should be balance from the chair and the vice-chair. That may
[ Page 13890 ]
not be the case if they are elected by 12 of their peers. If they were elected by 112 of their peers or 250 of their peers, it might be the case.
The Crown is providing the funding for this, and we have to be sure that they are not a very, very strong advocate for any section of the artistic community at large. I think it would be a significant mistake if we adopted that measure. I feel quite strongly on it, because where they have done this, it hasn't worked. Where they have appointed the chair -- and the Canada Council has decades of experience in this area -- they've found that it does work very well. I wish the member would perhaps rethink that.
G. Farrell-Collins: As we move through the committee stage on this bill, I'm becoming less and less confident that there really is an intent to give this committee some independence. The minister talks about giving them independence, making them representative of the community, and having them make decisions and allocate funds, but at each step of the way there are strings. I can't count how many times in this debate alone the minister has stood up and said: "We're worried that these people might not do their job properly; we're worried that they may represent a group too strongly."
I can understand that concern, but if we're going to appoint 15 people under the guidelines that we've itemized under section 3, which is that they be broadly based and on a regional basis from the arts and cultural community, I assume that we're doing that because we have some confidence in these people. Too often the government delegates the work but never delegates any of the responsibility and accountability, and never really gives people the opportunity to make those determinations on their own. This appears to be another example, where we're creating this Arts Council -- a good idea, everybody agrees with that and is in favour of having an Arts Council -- but at the same time we're not giving them the independence to really do anything. All their staffing is going to come from the ministry. They won't be able to appoint their own chair or their own vice-chair. At every step of the way, there are strings that the minister and the ministry will have on that council.
I think the least we could do would be to provide those 15 people -- quality people, I'm sure the minister will appoint -- with the ability to decide who should chair their meetings. If they can't decide that -- if you don't trust them to decide that -- then I doubt very much that we're trusting them to do much of anything. So I do intend to move an amendment to section 4 -- the new section 4(2): "The council must designate a member to be the chair and another member to be the vice-chair of the council." I so move.
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: Just let me speak briefly to the amendment, to let the minister know that I think the amendment has some real merit. We're talking about establishing an independent Arts Council.
The minister has used the language of the Canada Council as a point of reference, and I'm not sure that it's the appropriate point of reference we should be thinking of here. The Canada Council, which has served our country well, has also had some problems over the years. It's been well noted for developing bureaucracy and labyrinthine decision-making. We don't want to replicate the problems associated with the Canada Council here in British Columbia.
We have talked about establishing an independent Arts Council. The minister has already told us that this Arts Council isn't going to have its own staff or its own support services; they're all going to come from the ministry. So concerns already have been expressed, right here in this committee today, about the supposed independence of this Arts Council.
The minister tells us that 15 good, strong members of the general community of British Columbia, including working artists, are going to be appointed by order-in-council to serve on the council. These are going to be, hopefully, among the best and the brightest artists, and people in the business community here in British Columbia, who are going to run this Arts Council. Why could they not choose from among themselves a chair and a vice-chair, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove's amendment to this section contemplates?
They could even be given some direction from the legislation, if we wanted to, to let them know that, as the minister says, no one should be appointed to those positions if they represent only one sector or if they're lobbyists for one sector. But presumably those 15 best and brightest minds on the council would take that into account. They would not want to have this new Arts Council, this body being established by this bill, to be seen as anything less than the very best and objective in terms of the advice it's going to be taking and the decisions it's going to be making.
So I think the amendment has some real merit. My sense is that the member is offering it in a friendly manner. I think it's an improvement to the bill. I encourage the minister to accept this amendment, so we can move on.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member mentioned that it's at least a matter of balance and so on, or a matter of trust. It really is not a matter of trust; it is a matter of getting as close as we can to absolute balance.
As far as the comparison to the Canada Council is concerned, the Canada Council has served the country well; I think there's general acceptance of that. You mentioned that there was empire-building in the Canada Council. We happen to have the figures with us. About 20 percent of the funding of the Canada Council goes directly to administration. In my cultural hat, in that part of the ministry, 5.5 percent goes to administration -- the lowest in the country -- and I think it will remain around that level.
I do think the minister must have the ability to choose individuals who he is confident can be impartially balanced. Remember that this is a free vote in that committee of 15 votes and that if they don't like the inclinations of the chair and vice-chair, they can certainly vote against them -- indeed, they are empowered to do so.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's a small point, perhaps, but I think it's indicative of the paternalistic view of governments in general -- not just this one but a lot of governments: let's pretend we're going to give the council some autonomy; let's pretend we're going to let them allocate the funds the way they want; let's pretend that they're going to let them allocate the funds the way they want. Let's pretend that they're going to actually have some clout -- but we'll make sure that the
[ Page 13891 ]
staffing comes from our ministry; we'll make sure that they have to report to us on a regular.... Well, they should report anyway, but who knows what form those reports are going to take and what we're going to be asking them to do. In this case, they can't even appoint or elect their own chair.
It's a small point, but I think it sends a clear signal to the people that the chair is there because the minister wants the chair there. All the rest of them are appointed, yes, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they come with their abilities and talents, but the chair is there because they're special. They were picked by somebody else, and they have a direct line to the minister; they have better access. I think what you're likely to find is that rather than have the council respect the chair as one of their colleagues who's accountable to them, they'll look at the chair as somebody who represents the ministry.
My sense is that the whole reason this Arts Council Act came into existence is that the arts community is not comfortable having policy and all the issues around arts and culture set by the government, set by the minister. Again, perhaps we're in an isolated situation here, because the minister has, as the member opposite said, "earned his spurs" and is well respected. But that may not always be the case.
As I said, and I've said a number of times in this House, you don't just draft a piece of legislation for one minister or even for one government; you draft a piece of legislation for a long time. Ministers change and governments change, and I'm concerned that we're going to end up with a section here.... You're going to have a council of 15, and they're going to look to the chair of that council as having direct access to the minister, and to the minister as having direct access to the chair. You won't have that independence.
I think if you're going to choose a group of people to run the council, in order to make that group work well that chair should be accountable and answerable to those on the council, not to the minister. It may be a subtle change, but I think it's a significant change, and it sends a clear message to the council. I think in this case if it's left as it stands it will be a negative message. If the minister were to accept the amendment in the friendly way it's being offered, I think it would be a positive message: that the chair is accountable to the council, not the minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: The members make some salient points; there's not much doubt about that. But I still reflect upon the ability to ensure that there's absolute balance. When I'm talking about absolute balance.... We discussed this very briefly this morning. For instance, I appointed two people to Okanagan University College, and they get paid $5,000 per annum. One of those is a Liberal candidate who ran against me in 1972. I appointed her because I felt that she would be a very good representative of the community as a whole. The other one is a rather prominent individual who is certainly not a New Democrat. Those are the only two appointments I have made in that area.
The council does have the major powers. They allocate that money, essentially. If they do not like what the chair is doing, they will vote against the chair or the vice-chair. But I think there must be that balance on council. With 15 individuals, I think it's part of the responsibility of government to ensure there is a balance. They get the budget; they appoint the funding; they have to report to the House. There are lots of breaks in there.
I know what the member means, but I'm frankly still not convinced that this is the way to go. We thought about this quite carefully. If it were a free vote through the artistic community at large, it might not even work -- I don't know. But I do know that, in the final analysis, I'm responsible to the House, and I would rather do that knowing that this system works to the great advantage of the community at large.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess my final comments are just that I disagree strongly with the minister's stance on this. I think it's incumbent that the chair, whomever that may be, is accountable to the council, and that if the council isn't happy with the leadership of the chair, it can replace the chair. I think what the minister is setting up is a situation that perhaps not under his guidance, but under the guidance of another minister, could result in great dysfunction of the group if the chair was at loggerheads with the council and didn't have the confidence of the council. It's true that the minister appoints all 15 members, and that is the control the minister has. I know that the minister should do that, with the guidance of the community. And you will have 15 quality people there. If those 15 quality people can make any decision at all, they should be able to decide who is going to chair their meetings and provide leadership. If they can't decide that on their own, then this whole thing is a charade.
I disagree with the minister's stance. That is why caucuses elect their caucus chair. If the Premier tried to appoint them, there would be you-know-what to pay. It is just a matter of who is accountable to whom. I feel strongly about that. I hope that history will prove me wrong, but the member opposite is also a good student of history and perhaps he'll learn something from this too.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister made reference earlier -- I believe in second reading -- to an honorarium being paid to members of the council. In an aside, he also mentioned that he intended for them to meet eight times a year. I believe the figure used was $175 per meeting. There is also provision under section 5 for travelling and incidental expenses. Could the minister confirm if those numbers are what he is looking at, how he arrived at those conclusions, and what other alternatives he looked at?
[3:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: We went over this very carefully. Members of the council will be paid $175 a day; the chair will be paid $250 per day. These are plus actual and accommodation expenses for the meetings, and there are eight meetings per year. So it is not a heavy blow to the public purse at large. There may be nine meetings, but we anticipate the average will be about eight meetings a year. There are other councils that are similar to this, and all across government the rates for boards, commissions and agencies are set by Treasury Board, as the member well knows. So it is not out of line; there are not an amazing number of meetings allocated per year. When you look at the total expense of 15 people times $175, plus $250 for the chair, I think it comes within the realm of acceptance. The
[ Page 13892 ]
reason we are doing this is that there are working artists who simply cannot afford to give up that day. So the honorarium is adequate, I think.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not questioning the validity of paying people some sort of honorarium for attending meetings. But I'm not clear, and perhaps it stands out there in another piece of legislation that I'm not terribly familiar with.... The minister made reference to the guidelines set out by the department of the Premier's Office responsible for boards, agencies and commissions. Nowhere in the act does it mention the number of days a year they will meet. Is that done somewhere else?
Second, I assume those meetings are one-day meetings. I'm just questioning; I want to make sure that we're not setting up a situation where we have a chair who can claim a per diem rate for work they are doing on behalf of the council. There has been a history, which I won't go into now, of some people being appointed as chairs of various boards, agencies or commissions who then bill us for six days a week at $250 a day, or sometimes higher than that. I just want to make sure that that is not going to happen in this case. I assume that the chair's job is going to be to chair the meetings and that it's not a full-time position, nor is it intended to end up that way.
Hon. B. Barlee: Let me set the member's concerns at rest. First of all, when I look at the other councils I have appointed in both of my ministries -- Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, then this one -- there were 16 people and they got nothing. They got a sandwich for lunch, and 15 out of the 16 are still there. It amazes me. So that says something, doesn't it? Most of those members could certainly well afford to provide their own sustenance, and they met about eight or ten times a year as well. This means that if they meet eight times a year, it won't be for two days; it would be four times two, which would be eight. We're a little flexible on that. We might go to ten one year and six the next year, so there's some continuity there. I hope that addresses the problems the member had with this.
D. Mitchell: While we're on this section dealing with remuneration expenses for members of council, the minister has had an amendment approved in this committee today allowing for broad representation on the council from various regions in the province. Considering the fact that members of this council will be coming from all over British Columbia, when and where they meet will be a significant factor. I'm not sure if it's contemplated that the meetings will rotate and be held in different parts of the province. What has the minister budgeted for meetings of the council for the next 12-month period? He says that he and his staff have gone through this very carefully in terms of the numbers. In this year's budget, which the minister has already had approved for his ministry, what has he budgeted for meetings of this council? While he's at it, and contemplating that this legislation will probably pass, what is the total budget for the British Columbia Arts Council? The minister must surely have budgeted for that in this year's budget. What will be the total budget for the British Columbia Arts Council?
Hon. B. Barlee: The only member of the council who may put in a little more time is the chair, so we are budgeting up to 50 days a year. I would think it would be very unlikely that the $12,500 would eat into it that much, and I would assume it would be significantly less than that.
As far as the other 15 members are concerned, it is based on four meetings of two days annually, with four additional days for travel and preparation, and that was $175 per day. That's $29,400. Additional remuneration for members to appear at conferences was a total of $9,800, which would be about $800-and-something per month on average. Additional travel for members to participate in conferences is $14,000. A newsletter twice a year to the artistic community at large, with four pages and 1,500 newsletters going out, and including the writing of it, is a maximum of $10,000. The annual report is always a little more problematic because it has to be printed, so that's $5,000. Additional communications, business cards, letterhead, press releases, and so on are $2,500, and total new expenses are $83,200. Current expenses for the existing Arts Board -- general meeting costs for the Arts Board, including travel, are $25,000; expenses and per diems for jury members and advisory committees is $130,000. Total current expenses are $155,000. Total expenses all across the board, including the Arts Board and so on, are $238,200.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
D. Mitchell: Section 6 deals with the report and financial statement that the Arts Council will be making. The minister will hopefully be able to live up to the responsibilities of this, because time and again we see colleagues of his on the executive council tabling annual reports for ministries, agencies or boards -- one, two -- very much later than the requirement in the legislation. Just today in the House we saw a ministry annual report tabled for the year 1992-93, or something like that. So hopefully the minister will be able to time the reports as stated in this legislation.
I'd like to ask about section 6(3), which says: "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." The general gist of the debate we've had, and the concerns that have been put on the record in this debate on this important bill -- Bill 12, the Arts Council Act -- deal with the possible lack of independence of this body, and the minister has spoken at great length about the fact that this Arts Council is going to be independent. The minister's news release that went out to the arts communities throughout the province said that this is going to be an independent body. Yet a number of concerns have been expressed in debate on this bill dealing with the fact that this Arts Council is not going to have its own staff; it's going to have to rely on the ministry, and the chair is going to be appointed by the minister.
A number of other areas that really raise concerns.... Only time will tell if the arts community and the people of British Columbia are really satisfied that this Arts Council is truly going to be independent. That's the one major concern that has been expressed. I think most of us in this House want to support this legislation, but the concern has been flagged. And no doubt a number of members in this House will be watching closely to ensure that this Arts Council is not manipulated by whichever minister or future minister is responsible to the Legislature for this.
But this section, one of the final sections of this bill, says: "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." How does that square with the independence of the Arts Council?
[ Page 13893 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: I think it squares very well. I think the public should have a watchdog; after all, we are spending public money. That is my job. Therefore if I find the public money is not being well spent, then I will require a business plan. I will be a watchdog. We're not talking about a lot of money, but we are talking about taxpayers' money. That's why that section is there -- "...any information or advice the minister may require." I may indeed take the chair and the vice-chair to task, saying: "I'm sorry, your expenses are out of line in this area." We must have that provision in there.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
G. Farrell-Collins: Has the minister drafted the regulations to govern this act yet? If so, would he be willing to put those forward so we can all have a look at them in the next few days?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is purely for future consideration; nothing is contemplated at the present time.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to clarify that. There are currently no regulations to govern this act, and there are not any intended over the next while, but there may be some in the future. Is the minister saying there's no intent for regulations to be drafted for this bill?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, the member restated that correctly.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 12, Arts Council Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. B. Barlee: I call committee on Bill 14, the Tourism Act.
TOURISM ACT
The House in committee on Bill 14; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: We'll just let the minister's staff take their places. This is a relatively small bill, although a very important bill; there are only four sections to this bill. Under section 1 we might be able to address most of the concerns, and then, hopefully, we can move on.
This new Tourism Act for the province of British Columbia is something we debated pretty well in second reading in terms of general principles. But there is now an opportunity for the minister to address a few specific concerns. In section 1, there is one major change, and this is really the most significant change in this piece of legislation. It is section 1(d), which adds tourism interests to those considered in land use and resource use management decisions in the province.
This is the major change in the legislation. It's probably an area that the minister might want to comment on a little further. It adds an extra interest to any local land use planning. During second reading debate, I expressed a concern that this might add some complexity to land use planning in different parts of the province -- although I think it's valuable; I think the tourism industry should be represented at the table. But I would like to ask the minister: what kind of consultation has taken place with other ministries of government before bringing this piece of legislation forward? What kind of consultation is taking place -- not only outside of government but inside government -- to ensure that tourism interests will be represented at local land use and management tables in a way that will be constructive?
[3:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: All other ministries, especially the resource ministries, have been consulted at length. Certainly Tourism should have a place at the table in land use planning, for several reasons. First of all, industry at large -- I mean all industry at large, not specifically the tourism sector -- does appreciate this. It does make for long-range strategies that serve every part of the community. It is logical. I sensed that from second reading yesterday -- that it was a very logical sort of way to go. When I have conferred with the various players in the tourism industry, they are universally pleased with this. We have no major objections from other parts of government -- that is, the other ministries that are concerned with it as well.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us whether or not any staff has been added to the ministry to take into account this new, added responsibility? We now say the Ministry of Tourism is going to be at the table throughout the province of British Columbia when tourism interests need to be championed and when land use decisions and resource management decisions are taking place. Can you tell us what specific resources have been allocated in this year's budget to take account of this new feature in the legislation?
Hon. B. Barlee: As the member well knows, we have the tightest Tourism ministry in Canada, per capita; I must admit that we do have, compared to our second-place competitor, Ralph Klein. He may not know really quite what he's doing there, because he had 130. He now has less. He was thinking of privatizing, which I think is a mistake. We had 70. We have four full-time employees committed to this particular sector.
D. Mitchell: The minister may have to field other questions on this particular area later on in the debate, but I have one specific area that I raised during second reading debate that I'd like to ask him about in relation to section 1. Section 1 deals with the duties, powers and functions of the Minister of Tourism in British Columbia under this legislation. I should let the minister know that I've had representation from some constituents of mine, stating that this bill -- this new Tourism Act -- really is so important to the province of British Colum-
[ Page 13894 ]
bia that we should have a Minister of Tourism who does only tourism work, and the Ministry of Small Business and Culture should be separate. I've had constituents reflect that to me, and I have noticed that there are other members in this House -- other members of the opposition -- who want to see fewer ministries of government. They want to consolidate them and have just six or eight ministries of government, and they want to see a smaller Legislature.
I want to convey to the minister that I have constituents actively involved in the tourism industry, bringing wealth to our province -- entrepreneurs who are doing a good job -- who would like to see a Minister of Tourism who could spend 100 percent of his time on tourism alone and not be burdened with the other portfolios of Culture and Small Business, which are important in their own right.
Having said that, I'd like to ask the minister what this act will do to enhance his abilities to attain one current issue which is before us in British Columbia that is so important. The federal government has established a Canadian Tourism Commission; I referred to this during second reading debate on this bill. The Prime Minister came out to Vancouver just a few months ago to announce this great initiative of a Canadian Tourism Commission, worth $50 million a year in spending, and with 50 full-time staff. The object of this commission is to attract tourism -- tourists and visitors from around the world -- to Canada.
There's a debate now taking place as to where in Canada this commission is going to be located. Heaven forbid that it should be located in Ottawa, or in the pork-barrel in Toronto, or in Quebec to placate the separatists! Because we know that doesn't work. Heaven forbid that that should happen! But wouldn't it be a great signal to the rest of the country, to British Columbians and to tourists from around the world if that commission's headquarters were located right here in British Columbia? I think it would make sense to have it right in Vancouver, a city that is known around the world and is positioned on the Pacific Rim -- the greatest emerging tourism market in the world. British Columbia understands the importance of tourism perhaps better than any other province.
I'd like to ask the minister what he is he doing.... Are Bill 14 and the duties, powers and functions being conferred on this minister going to help him provide the resources necessary to ensure that the Canadian Tourism Commission is located in British Columbia? There's a private sector initiative, which the minister is familiar with, taking place right now that's trying to get this commission located here in British Columbia. I think it would be a big boon to us. It would be a symbolic gesture of the first order, and I'd like to know if this bill is going to help this minister get that commission located here in British Columbia. If it does, I think it deserves the support of every living British Columbian.
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, we've done our due diligence on that as well. We not only lead the country in tourism growth, as the member well knows, but we are also aware that we are actually the heavy hitter in tourism in Canada. The dollar-a-year-man to the Prime Minister is a man called Judd Buchanan. Judd Buchanan happens to be a very straight shooter, and he has cooperated with us absolutely fully. We have requested that the headquarters of the CTC be in Vancouver, for several reasons. We are on the most buoyant economy in the world: the Asia-Pacific and the Pacific coast of North America. There is a meeting of the CTC on May 15 in Vancouver, and the decision on where the headquarters of the CTC goes will be on the agenda. We have also indicated our wishes to the federal government, so we've covered that base very, very well.
I would think that Vancouver and Victoria, who are in the top 20 cities in the world to visit.... It's really quite astonishing: both of them are in British Columbia -- and they haven't looked over the rest of British Columbia, because there would be other cities that would probably fit into that category as well. We have worked very diligently on that; we've informed the federal government. I must admit that the federal government has a lot of time for us; they listen to us very carefully.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to compliment the minister for the encouraging words he has just stated. I know that he's devoting some of his deputy minister's time to the 26-member commission that's been established. I know that his deputy minister, along with the president of Tourism Vancouver, Mr. Rick Antonson, is now going to be a member on this 26-member Canadian Tourism Commission.
But I'd like to ask the minister how familiar he is with the work that's being done by a private sector group based in Vancouver, the Canadian Global Tourism Initiative, which is co-chaired by the general manager of the Hyatt Regency hotel in Vancouver, Mr. Mark Andrew, and by the president and CEO of the Great Canadian Railtour Co., Mr. Peter Armstrong. They've taken this initiative, separate and apart from any efforts of the government, to ensure that the Canadian Tourism Commission is located in British Columbia because it just makes so much sense for us; tourism is emerging as our number one industry in British Columbia.
I'd like to ask the minister: is he familiar with the initiative of the Canadian Global Tourism group? If the minister is expressing optimism, can he tell us what the process is going to be? When will the decision be made, and what chances are there that British Columbia will be the headquarters for the Canadian Tourism Commission? How does he rate our chances?
Hon. B. Barlee: I rate our chances very high. I think they'd be making a significant mistake if they didn't give it to us. My ADM of Tourism is on that committee, by the way. My DM is on the CTC, along with two other British Columbians, not just one; Rick is one and Joe Houssain is the other. We have three representatives there, so we're well represented all the way across the board. I don't know how many members are on that committee altogether.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are about 25, so we have three out of 25, which is about right. We have three very good members there.
As far as the one hat you referred to, there's not much doubt about it: by the turn of the century, tourism will probably be the leading business in British Columbia as far as revenue is concerned. There are people who would debate that point, but tourism is so vast that it may eventually become a single, stand-alone ministry. I don't think that's in the immediate future.
The official opposition wants to reduce the numbers of ministries from 18 to 12. I frankly don't know how they can do
[ Page 13895 ]
that. I know that I'm extremely busy with the three hats I wear: Culture, Small Business and Tourism. I really do not know how they could do it and serve the public well.
R. Chisholm: The minister has stated that there won't be any more FTEs with the adoption of this bill, and I would just like to lead on that a little further. I'd like to talk about the land claims treaty negotiations that are underway in British Columbia. Does the minister foresee using section 1(1)(d) to get his ministry a seat at these tables?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. The government does hire a number of negotiators. If those negotiators want input from my ministry, whether it's Culture or Tourism or even Small Business, they will make that request of us. I don't think it's necessary to have an extra person, or an extra two or three FTEs. That would be a waste of taxpayers' money, because that's adequately handled by the negotiators now.
R. Chisholm: I gather, then, that you are saying that you won't have anybody at the table. Pursuing that same line of questioning, have any of the aboriginal communities approached the ministry to have you at that table?
Hon. B. Barlee: There would be two major negotiators at the table: the government representing the third parties; and the aboriginal community, representing themselves, their band or their nation. Frankly, we would not expect to be and we have not been approached by any of the major bands or major nations in the province to represent them at the table; nor should we be.
R. Chisholm: Finally, on the same subject, could the minister comment on whether or not the Ministry of Tourism would have jurisdiction over future land claim territories and the establishment of scenic corridors? One last question: could the minister comment on whether or not he has had any communications with first nations on whether he would like to work with them on establishing future scenic corridors? While he is on it, how much has his ministry done in terms of establishing tourism strategy with our first nations peoples?
Hon. B. Barlee: We realize that in certain markets in the world, for instance, the first nations are a significant attraction. I think this is what the member is alluding to. Certainly the Old West has an amazing attraction to many Germans in that higher-income group. There are something like 300 or 400 clubs in Germany, and these clubs travel to North America to relive the Old West. Whether it's in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, they do this, and they're quite willing to spend vast sums of money. So what we have done.... We have an inventory of the product in British Columbia. That would be Kwakiutl, perhaps Haida, Interior Salish, Coast Salish, Dene, Tsimshian and so on. Looking over that very, very well, we've also had conferences with a number of the players in the Indian nations who are interested in following this route of international tourism and drawing extra -- what I call new -- funds or money into their particular communities.
R. Chisholm: One part of the question you didn't answer was whether the Ministry of Tourism would have jurisdiction in the future over land claim territories when we talk about the establishment of scenic corridors. We have it in other areas, and I'm just wondering if Tourism would have it in this area.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, this would not be under our purview; this would be under the purview of the negotiators assigned by the government.
R. Chisholm: Still on the section dealing with new powers for the minister in terms of having a seat at a land use planning table -- or whatever -- I'd like to ask a couple of questions on behalf of the Clayoquot Sound Aquaculture Association and the aquacultural industry in general. I'm going to send across a piece of correspondence dated January 18, to the minister from the Clayoquot Sound Aquaculture Association, on the question of scenic corridors -- the advisory process for Clayoquot Sound.
I would like to pause for just a moment for the minister to see the correspondence, and then ask the questions if permissible.
[3:45]
The minister will note that they were having serious concerns with the process. Could the minister first explain to the House what this advisory group's role was, how it was established and how this relates to his new powers in this bill under section 1(1)(d)?
Hon. B. Barlee: This process is ongoing; there's no doubt about that at all. Perhaps I indicate from the tone of the letter that some of these individuals are not very happy with the way the process is going, and I understand that. The Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association is interested in doing very well in their specific area of enterprise, whereas we are more interested in scenic corridors. We have to bear in mind that there has to be a balance between aquaculture and the scenic corridors. It would be very logical for them, certainly, to lobby the opposition parties, which they have done. I think the member fully understands that. This process is still ongoing in consultation with various groups, including the Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to read into the record a few paragraphs of this letter of January 18, 1995, from the aquaculture industry in Clayoquot Sound, dealing with the scenic corridors discussions. This group says:
"The scenic corridors advisory group does not operate as a public advisory process. The agenda, the information presented and the results are controlled by the government representatives who should be facilitating the process.
"The process is not objective. Double standards are being used to evaluate the visual impacts from tourism and all other activities. Tourism activities are being given essentially exclusive access to large areas without clear rationale -- other activities that are mutually compatible and do not diminish the scenic quality are not permitted in significant proportions of the sound. The lack of objectivity is also resulting in the lack of adherence to the terms of reference."
It goes on to say:
"Concerns and comments from advisory group members are being completely ignored. Specifically, concerns raised by aquaculture representatives were not directly answered during the SCAG meetings. These concerns were included in a letter and sent to the two co-chairs of the process, requesting a reply.
[ Page 13896 ]
Nearly six weeks later, this letter has not been answered, yet a draft report was completed and a deadline for this process fast approaches. A copy of our letter, which details our concern, is attached" -- which I gave to the minister.
My question is: where does the Tourism Act provide direction on how scenic corridors are to be established? This section we are debating gives the minister a mandate to be part of land use planning, but there is no mandate or direction to give authority to the need for scenic corridors.
Hon. B. Barlee: Addressing that, as I said before, there has to be, hon. member, a certain amount of balance. If I remember correctly, and of course I was in charge of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food several years ago.... Certainly I do remember from my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that nine new licences have been given to the aquacultural association. Whether it is Clayoquot or not, I doubt it would be specifically in that area. Certainly we are addressing these issues. I think the member has probably seen some of the impact of the aquacultural association upon the shoreline of British Columbia. Clayoquot is one of the grand areas of British Columbia.
Again, the Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association certainly is trying to lobby government, and that's the right way to go about it. But we in government, specifically in Tourism, must bear in mind that we're looking down the road ten or 15 or 20 years. There has to be a long-term strategy. This is part of the way to address a long-term strategy. Not everyone gets their way; there's no doubt about that at all.
R. Chisholm: On the same line, hon. minister -- and I'm going to repeat a little -- there is no direction that other needs be considered in establishment of scenic corridors. I repeat the sentence from the industry, and I quote:
"Tourism activities are being given essentially exclusive access to large areas without clear rationale -- other activities that are mutually compatible and do not diminish the scenic quality are not permitted in significant proportions of [Clayoquot] Sound. The lack of objectivity is also resulting in a lack of adherence to the terms of reference."
My question to the minister is: if we give this new authority to the minister under this section, how will he deal in future with this sort of concern that was raised this January by the aquaculture industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: Draft 2 is at the printer right now. Each one of the groups at the table will have an opportunity to comment on that draft -- and it is only a draft.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 14, Tourism Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 2.
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 2; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: I have a brief question for the minister on this amendment to the corporation capital tax. I wonder if she could offer a brief explanation of why this particular amendment is being brought in at this time. Could she also explain why more significant amendments aren't being brought in, even going so far as to repeal the corporation capital tax at this time? We had some references to this during second reading debate. The minister really hasn't answered those questions, and I think now would be an appropriate time.
Hon. E. Cull: We did discuss the matter during second reading debate -- in fact, in both my introductory remarks and my closing remarks. The member may not have been in the House or have had a chance to review Hansard; I'll repeat very briefly what I said in my closing remarks. The budget consultation this year showed very clearly that people -- whether they were from the business community or from labour; whether they were local government leaders or just ordinary folk -- who came out to talk to me about the 1995 budget said that this was not the year to make tax cuts. In fact, if we had eliminated it entirely, we would have had a deficit this year instead of a small surplus.
I think all members have been urging the government to balance its books and achieve a surplus budget, and to not continue making tax cuts or other spending decisions that would not allow us to have a balanced budget. This year, because of the advice we received through the prebudget consultation, we elected to pay down debt and not cut taxes further.
This particular change, though, essentially brings our corporation capital tax into compliance with changes that were made to the federal income tax laws, so that a number of changes were required. This was announced by me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources last year.
F. Gingell: I was going to let section 1 pass, because I appreciate what it does, which is, purely and simply, to deal with an anomaly; now the interest, as it's earned, is added to the fund to be excluded, like the fund is. But I can't allow the minister's remarks about a balanced budget to pass. Clearly, you haven't repealed the corporate capital tax. You don't have a balanced budget. Your accounts are flimflammery. There are $337 million of expenditures in the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority. That is not included, but in the years to which you make comparisons it was included. You've included $250 million of income, supposedly from the sale of some of the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, which are not income of 1995-96, whatever opinions you may get from KPMG Peat Marwick. The auditor general is correct: they are not revenues of this year. You don't have a balanced budget, and that's why you haven't repealed the corporation capital tax. You're just living up to the promises you previously made. I would be interested to know if the minister has any comment on that.
[4:00]
The Chair: Hon. member, we have canvassed general principle in second reading. Indeed, I believe you gave that
[ Page 13897 ]
speech in second reading debate. I don't think the minister would be in order to respond. We are in committee stage now. Having said that, I'll go directly to the member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: I have just a very quick question about the rationale for (f)(ii). Maybe I'm off base here, but I just want some clarification or the rationale for (f)(ii): "...any security posted by the corporation under section 10 of the Mines Act that is not deducted under subparagraph (i)...." Could a rationale be applied there?
Hon. E. Cull: Subsection (f)(ii) is in the existing legislation. The entire section is being replaced here, but only subsection (i) is new. The other was already there.
A. Warnke: Maybe I was not clear. I guess what I'm getting at is that there appears to be some sort of conflict or contradiction. Nonetheless, I will just accept what the minister has said about that.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: Could the minister please advise us for what time period this $270 million in additional borrowing approval will fund the capital expenditures anticipated by B.C. Ferries? Does the minister have any breakdown of what the $270 million will be spent on?
Hon. E. Cull: The increased borrowing limit will fund some portion of the ten-year capital plan for the ferries, to at least March 1997.
F. Gingell: Can you identify which portions of the ten-year capital plan are going to be funded by this $270 million?
Hon. G. Clark: This is a borrowing limit which we may or may not reach. This allows for the full funding of the ten-year capital plan through the conventional means. If we do any private sector partnerships, or otherwise, that might mitigate the borrowing requirements.... For example, there are three high-speed catamarans, which the member is familiar with -- I think they're about $60 million each. There is provision in the capital plan for one conventional ship a year, which can range from $17 million or $18 million for a century-class 100-car ferry to the larger Queen of Prince Rupert, which is required, and that's about $70 million. In addition, there is the Duke Point terminal and the Duke Point road, which is another $70-odd million; the renovation of the terminal at Horseshoe Bay, including extra parking required just for the Sunshine Coast; the renovation of Departure Bay, although that's very modest, to accommodate the fast ferries; some more passenger service terminals; and renovation of the other terminals throughout the system.
As the member knows, the ten-year capital plan is a very significant, rational plan which looks out over ten years. This provides the funding for it. It's no secret that I have been quoted in the press -- and I have no problem saying that here today -- that we're looking at possibilities for private sector participation. There's a lot of interest in the Duke Point terminal and a build-own-operate-transfer arrangement -- a bought arrangement which we are actively seeking to explore -- which may allow the private sector to take some of the risk and therefore some of the debt. Similarly, there is a lot of international interest in something similar to the three fast ferries.
The short answer is that this increase in the debt limit will allow the full ten-year funding of the capital plan. We will make every effort, of course, to see if we can minimize that and do things in alternative financing ways, etc.
F. Gingell: Could the minister advise the committee what the borrowings of B.C. Ferry Corporation were at March 31, 1995?
Hon. G. Clark: As of March 31, 1995, it was $419 million.
F. Gingell: As the Minister of Employment and Investment knows, I have some concerns about the fast-ferry project that deal primarily with the issues of the ability to meet schedules, very busy waters, and some environmental concerns. I wrote to him back in December; I haven't had a response yet.
Hon. G. Clark: I recall the correspondence. I thought that a full briefing was offered to the members, which might take place.... The member is shaking his head in the negative, so I'll ensure that that takes place.
The member raised some very interesting questions about the fast ferries -- almost all not accurate, but obviously legitimate questions. The one area where there is some discussion is on the environmental side, which I was surprised to get from the member, and which we take very seriously. I'm certainly happy to canvass all of us in the House and I am fully briefed on it. But I think it would be appropriate to have a detailed, full review on the fast-ferry program particularly. We have a detailed business case now, which I'd be happy to provide, as well as others. But some of the key assumptions in parts of the letter, from memory, aren't accurate, and some of the criticism, particularly from Mr. Ward here on the Island, is based on certain assumptions that we don't believe to be accurate.
I'll tantalize members with just one comment, and that's on the environmental side. There's a lot of debate and division around gas turbines versus diesel engines. Gas turbines consume something like 30 percent more fuel, which obviously has an impact environmentally. Diesel has other challenges, and generally speaking, the corporation is working on trying to accomplish this with traditional diesel engines as opposed to next-generation gas turbine engines. That's partly a technical debate and partly a technological priesthood debate, and depending on your assumptions, it has a big difference on environmental implications.
I'll make sure that the member's letter is answered within the next week, and that a full briefing is offered to the member. I know other members have had or are about to have briefings on the fast-ferry program in particular.
The Chair: I just remind both the minister and the member that this debate is ex cathedra. So I....
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry: is ...?
The Chair: Ex cathedra. It's wildly out of order at this stage, so I hope we will just pose this question....
[ Page 13898 ]
F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite sure what the instructions were, but anyway....
Is the minister suggesting that the Canadian Coast Guard has dropped its concerns or its disallowance for bidding of passenger ferries to be fuelled by compressed natural gas?
The Chair: Member, I'm sorry that my last instruction was not clear. I was simply making the point that the debate was moving into areas that are not really subsumed under this bill, and I would caution members that we must be in order on this particular item. Would you care to try again?
F. Gingell: May I put the position to you that if we can convince the minister not to proceed with the fast-ferries project, we might even convince him to reduce this anticipated borrowing from $730 million to some figure that's somewhat less?
The Chair: That would have been a legitimate mission in second reading. Minister?
Hon. G. Clark: First, I want to make a correction. I apologize because I inadvertently said that the debt limit level covers a full ten-year capital plan. It does not, entirely. As is appropriate, this is corrected from Finance and Ferries staff. Over time, these plans are obviously.... You can't entirely budget for something ten years out, because the costs are different, etc. This covers the fast-ferry plan, the Duke Point redevelopment and capital rehabilitation, and it allows for some of the first few years of the one-ship-a-year replacement program, if you will -- that's crudely put, but I mean the replacement and expansion program. Depending on our ability to pursue private sector partnerships, that might have to be a few years out; there may have to be some revisiting. So I apologize, to correct the record.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
F. Gingell: I'm sure the minister continues to be inundated, as MLAs are, with the concerns of elderly people living in homes they've owned for many years that, through unusual circumstances in the real estate market, have caused their so-called values to be increased. Has the minister given any thought to or looked at the issue of whether this particular tax, which is not really progressive but is regressive, is perhaps inappropriate? Has he given consideration to pulling out the homeowner grant clawback?
Hon. E. Cull: Given the focus this year in the budget on balancing the books and paying down debt, we have rejected any major tax cuts at this time. We looked at a number of tax reduction proposals; none of them was pursued, because of other priorities. This particular amendment makes sure that 95 percent of B.C. homeowners continue to receive the full homeowner grant, and that an adjustment has been made every year to maintain that percentage.
F. Gingell: I have one last question then. If you were ranking proposals to reduce taxes in the future, how high would you put this particular issue in that ranking?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think I could do that, because the thing I've learned in two budgets is that the tax concerns change from year to year. What might be considered a low ranking this year could be a higher ranking next year because of the economy, federal changes and all kinds of things. We continue to review taxes each year for proposed changes or reductions. This one will be looked at as a benefit to homeowners when we start to look at serious tax reductions again.
[4:15]
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
F. Gingell: Could the minister give me some assurance that this really doesn't change anything? There isn't any point in going through a rather long and complex calculation to see what this does, but all you're doing is providing for these reclamation trusts to be sitting in a tax-free status. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: The income in the trust has always been subject to tax. Prior to these amendments, that was not deductible from the overall taxation. This actually improves their tax situation by making it deductible.
F. Gingell: One could truly call it the mine's own registered retirement reclamation plan.
Hon. E. Cull: Actually, no, because in an RSP, your income is obviously tax-sheltered; your earnings within an RSP are tax-sheltered.
F. Gingell: I would suggest that's what this does.
Hon. E. Cull: No. I guess the member didn't hear clearly my answer to the last question. The income, the earnings, in the trust have always been taxable. What this now does is provide for a deduction before the calculation of other taxes.
F. Gingell: If this provides for the deduction, then surely that's the same thing as sheltered income.
Hon. E. Cull: Maybe the easiest way to provide more information to the member -- because this is a very complicated tax issue -- is to refer him to the press release from August 31, 1994, which I will make available to the member. The contributions to the mine reclamation trust are now tax-deductible. This will reduce the income taxes for the mining company, but earnings within the trust have been and remain taxable.
F. Gingell: But if those earnings, which I presume belong to the corporation that owns the fund, are left in the fund -- i.e., the earnings are made, they come into the hands of the corporation and are paid back into the fund as part of the contribution -- then they would be tax-deductible also. Is that not correct?
Hon. E. Cull: Previously, the only time you could deduct money that was in the trust from income for taxation purposes was when you spent the money. Now you can deduct it when you put it in. That is what is deductible: the contribution into the trust.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
[ Page 13899 ]
On section 8.
F. Gingell: I guess I don't have any problems with any of these sections, which really are purely and simply ensuring that transactions not intended to be originally taxed don't get caught into the trap. But the minister will remember that last year, when we dealt with the change of the base of the property transfer tax, during second reading I broached the suggestion to the minister that the old high-ratio financing looked after all the first-time buyers and was in fact a fairer and better exemption. Now that we're one year down the road, can the minister advise the committee how much greater the collection of property transfer tax was in the fiscal year just ended than it would have been with the exemption being for high-ratio financing rather than first-time buyers?
Hon. E. Cull: I may not be able to answer the question exactly the way the member has asked it, but I can tell him that under the old program, which cost $13 million for the exemption, 17,000 home purchasers benefited from the old high ratio. Under the new program, 19,000 people benefited last year, and the cost was $26 million.
F. Gingell: When one thinks that through, am I correct in coming to the conclusion that the increase in the number of people means two things -- first of all, that there may have been more homebuyers? It would be interesting to see the number of total transactions in 1994-95 versus 1993-94 to know whether 17,000 up to 19,000 is the same percentage or the same ratio. The second matter, I guess, is a conclusion that first-time buyers tend to have more money to put down on a transaction. They would not have been exempt under the old rules, and they become exempt because they are first-time buyers. You have the second group of people with little resources, who are second-time buyers and who are now being caught. You must have had some analysis done. Are they the conclusions?
Hon. E. Cull: While there certainly are situations of second-time buyers who have fewer resources than first-time buyers, that is the exception, not the rule. Usually, once someone has got their resources together to acquire a home, they purchase different homes as they move through their life cycle, and they generally have more resources to put towards the acquisition of second and third homes. But I think the increases are particularly notable, because there were 2,000 more people who benefited, despite the fact that we had a 20 percent reduction in sales last year. Even in the case of the reduced sales, we still saw more people benefit. Of course, the benefits that were provided to those first-time homebuyers were generally larger than under the old program. Very clearly, the objective of the government in changing this legislation last year was to make it easier for families to get that first home so that we could encourage home-ownership in the province. I think with more people benefiting, we've done that overall.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
F. Gingell: My questions are going to be from ignorance. When the provincial government requires Crown corporations to make grants in lieu of taxes to other government agencies, those taxes are based on the total tax bill -- i.e., you don't say: "This is the municipal portion of the taxes." You only give a grant to cover that and leave the school tax portion out of it. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: These are grants in lieu of provincial school taxes, so this is the provincial school tax that's affected here. Some municipalities had determined that the existing legislation wasn't strong enough to require them to pass on those taxes to the province that they collected on our behalf. Because they were for provincial school purposes, assessed for those purposes, we wanted to ensure that the money went where it was supposed to go.
F. Gingell: Yes, I realize that. I'm sorry I didn't make my question clear. Perhaps if I dealt with the question of a federal grant that's dealt with under subsection (a).... The grant that the granting organization makes -- whether it be CN or whoever; Canada Ports Corporation would be a good example -- does not clearly show the difference between the grant that is considered to be municipal taxes and the grant that is considered to be school taxes.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct; they are broken down that way.
F. Gingell: They are broken down that way. So what this does is ensure that the school portion passes through the municipality and comes back to the province. I understand that, and I expected that to be the answer, which is, I guess, why I started on the provincial side. In the case of grants in lieu of taxes being made by provincial organizations, whether they be Crown corps or whatever, you still include a portion for school taxes even though they are going to come back to yourself.
Hon. E. Cull: That's correct. And most of these taxes which we're trying to clarify here are provincial grants in lieu of taxes.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
F. Gingell: I just want to stand up and say to the minister that I'm really pleased that her ministry has listened to the concerns. A very mixed-up situation existed prior to these provisions being brought in. I certainly hope that these changes accomplish what it is that we all want to see sorted out.
Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
[4:30]
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 13900 ]
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 15.
REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: I move that this bill be now read a second time.
Hon. Speaker, this bill proposes a number of amendments to the Real Estate Act. For the most part, these amendments reinforce and supplement existing requirements of the act to ensure protection of the public in real estate matters. The major amendment in this bill would regulate the marketing of undivided or shared interests in land or buildings. The amendments are aimed at the recent proliferation of condominium-like developments in which purchasers buy a shared interest in an existing building or in bare land.
These quasi-condominiums raise a number of serious concerns. Purchasers of shared interests may not understand what they are purchasing and may receive less information about their investments than purchasers of comparable housing. These interests are not condominiums, where the owners have statutory rights, obligations and remedies. Because the disclosure statement requirements of the Real Estate Act do not apply to shared interests, there has been no requirement for the developer to prepare, file and distribute a disclosure statement to provide prospective purchasers with full, true and plain disclosure of the details of their investment. Nor have the purchasers of shared interests had the benefit of the other consumer protection provisions of the act, such as a cooling-off period in which to reconsider a decision to purchase.
In addition, the municipal approvals required in the case of ordinary condominium conversions, subdivisions and bare-land strata developments do not apply to shared-interest developments. As a result, local government control over the supply of rental housing and over land use and development is being eroded. Furthermore, there is no requirement that buildings converted under such a scheme meet current building standards, as is the case for condominium conversions.
These amendments to the Real Estate Act remedy these inequities in the real estate market by requiring the developers of shared interests in both existing buildings and bare land to distribute a disclosure statement to prospective purchasers, to meet building standards and to obtain local government approval. The amendments are intended to ensure purchasers receive the same level of disclosure and that shared-interest developments are subject to the same kinds of municipal approval presently required for condominiums, cooperatives and subdivided land. Several related amendments close similar gaps in the marketing requirements of the act by extending the disclosure and other consumer protection requirements to long-term leases and to cooperative associations involving partnership arrangements.
The bill also makes public protection amendments to the provisions of the act which regulate real estate licensees. Under current provisions, property managers who collect rent moneys must be licensed and are therefore subject to the educational, bonding and insurance requirements of the act. The amendments require that persons engaged in similar activities, such as the collection of condominium fees or short-term rental moneys, be similarly licensed.
Another consumer protection amendment deals with disclosure of agency relationships by licensees unknown to a prospective purchaser. The real estate agent, the realtor, may actually have a duty to disclose confidential information to the vendor, and often the person using that real estate agent may not be aware of exactly who the realtor is working for. The amendment will improve the information available to purchasers and vendors by requiring that the licensees disclose to these persons exactly whose interests they will be representing.
Other amendments will tighten the handling of moneys by real estate licensees. Real estate trust funds will be required to be held within the province to ensure that the funds remain within the regulatory ambit of the act. A related amendment would protect the public by stipulating that real estate moneys may only be paid to third parties in the transaction with the written consent of the principals.
The bill also contains amendments to the enforcement powers of the superintendent of real estate. Currently the superintendent has the power to conduct warrantless inspections of any person believed to have engaged in a real estate transaction. In order to ensure that these powers accord with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to reflect the superintendent's current practice, the amendments will limit these powers to inspections of licensees or former licensees.
Finally, the bill contains housekeeping amendments to clarify the corporate status of several corporations established by the act and to replace some outdated references to the superintendent of insurance.
D. Schreck: In my mind, this bill represents far more than just housekeeping amendments to plug loopholes. This bill shows part of what politics is all about. In the absence of the power to fix this problem, we have some unscrupulous developers being able to prey on uninformed purchasers and cause enormous uncertainty, with the eviction of tenants.
I have more than 200 tenants in my constituency, many of them in their seventies and eighties, who are worried about whether they are going to have a place to live as a result of the building they live in being registered for sale as undivided interest. It is only as a result of the introduction of this legislation that those tenants again feel some comfort and security. There have been tenants in two other buildings on the North Shore who have gone through the anxiety of not knowing whether the property would be sold out from under them and they would be subjected to harassment. I believe that one was very close to the boundary between West Vancouver-Garibaldi and West Vancouver-Capilano. I think it's just into the West Vancouver-Capilano side. I regret very much that we did not have the powers to protect those purchasers and those tenants at that time. Largely as a result of the high-profile struggle regarding that building, legislative work began to deal with this loophole. While the four buildings in my constituency will be protected by the statute, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether tenants in a building located in North Vancouver-Seymour will be protected by these amendments.
I put it to you that all tenants have protection under the Residential Tenancy Act. Even if these amendments do not
[ Page 13901 ]
capture that building near Capilano College in North Vancouver, the tenants should take some comfort that the Residential Tenancy Act will still protect them. In particular, what I mean by that is that purchasers of undivided interest are not buying a strata title suite. Purchasers of undivided interest are buying a share in a building; they become a shareholder in the overall property, not the owner of one unit in what we think of as a strata title building. As a consequence of that, people who purchase through this loophole that now exists may be quite surprised to find that they have no legal power to take possession of their suite. While the tenants who are having their building sold out from under them are going through enormous anxiety, they then have to worry about whether they're going to have fights on standards of maintenance, on bylaw questions, on suites being left empty and sold next to theirs, or on how the structure of the building is going to be managed. In other words, they're going to have enormous uncertainty, which they don't need, even though at the end of the day they may be able to assert their rights through the Residential Tenancy Act.
It is far better if no one is put through that kind of uncertainty. This legislation plugs the loophole that allows some developers to put tenants through that uncertainty and then some time down the road purchasers find that it is really they who have been the victims. Purchasers who buy into undivided interest -- or at least the people I have spoken to on the North Shore who have bought such units.... In one building I can think of near the Westview interchange, one was sold as undivided interest, and people somehow think that they have rights equivalent to a strata title owner. And they don't. They aren't eligible for the homeowner grant. They cannot obtain conventional financing. If any informed purchaser were to look at buying their contract and their interest in the building, I believe responsible legal counsel would tell those purchasers: "Don't touch this. There's a reason it looks like an incredibly good deal. It is because you are not getting the equivalent of buying a strata title building."
What this legislation does is protect potential purchasers of buildings that may be sold as undivided interest. It does so by requiring the municipality to approve the sale as an undivided interest, in the same way the municipality would approve the stratification of existing rental housing stock. It does so by enabling the municipality to require that the building be brought up to Building Code standards. It does so by requiring the filing of a prospectus with the superintendent of real estate and that this prospectus be made available to potential purchasers.
I put it to you that no units, for any practical purposes, will be sold if they have to jump through those hoops. It's not that the hoops are bureaucratic; it's that the hoops impart the knowledge that it's such a bad deal -- that you would be taking an extremely high risk if you were to buy into such a building. As a result, the potential purchasers will be protected.
The tenants, who would otherwise be victimized and have to take their chances on whether the Residential Tenancy Act will protect them or not, will have the security that they don't have to go through that hassle and fight arbitration by arbitration and case by case with people who may like to force them out of their building so they can take their suite on some sort of a scam.
So I say this legislation reflects what politics is really all about. It's about protecting people, providing security for people and stopping ripoffs. Those people who say politics makes no difference.... In fact, I was just speaking to someone from the tenants' association who said: "Issues like this, what do they have to do with partisan politics?" I say this is the essence of partisan politics.
I remember the Dave Barrett government in the 1970s offering, for the first time in this province, protection to tenants. I remember, within a year of that government being replaced, the Social Credit government of the day abolishing protection for tenants and tenants not having protection in this province for the following 17 years, until this government came along to restore protection for those tenants.
So I say that this legislation reflects the essence of politics, in terms of identifying whose side you are on. Are you on the side of kicking tenants out, to be able to flip a building and reap a quick profit by redefining the form of ownership of the building? Or are you on the side of protecting purchasers and tenants, and enabling the municipality to have some control over such developments?
[4:45]
The building in North Vancouver-Seymour near Capilano College is not in my riding, but as I'm the only government MLA on the North Shore, those tenants landed at my door asking for help with this legislation. I know that in the 1970s it was the New Democrat government that stood for tenants and the Social Credit government that removed that protection. In the 1990s, I want to know where that Liberal opposition stands. I know that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is a person I await hearing from in this debate on this issue. I challenge that member to say why he isn't here fighting for the tenants in his riding. This is an issue that shows who stands for whom.
I am proud to stand on the side of a government that moves to amend legislation, that offers security for 200 tenants in my riding who would otherwise be victimized by this scheme, and that I hope will remove the uncertainty for the tenants in the building in North Vancouver-Seymour. But even if it doesn't, they can count on my support in helping them with the Residential Tenancy Act. I hope that this opposition will stand up and show that they support this type of consumer protection as well.
J. Dalton: It is certainly a pleasure to speak after the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I can assure that member and all members opposite that we are supportive of this legislation.
I would say that the member is taking far too much credit for something that has been a longstanding issue. It is not the Seymour issue itself that precipitated this legislation. In a moment I am going to give a bit of history as to what led to this bill and these amendments, which, as I say, we are supportive of. I've talked to many people in the last two days -- lawyers, real estate agents, Real Estate Council representatives and the mayor of North Vancouver district, among others -- who are happy to see this. There is widespread support for the initiatives that are shown in here.
Let me just comment for a few moments about some of the history that led to this legislation. I am indebted, by the way, to the director of housing and properties and the director of legal services for the city of Vancouver, who, on July 18 of last year, presented a policy report to the Vancouver City
[ Page 13902 ]
Council that dealt specifically with the Arbutus Gardens issue in Vancouver, which I would say is one of the examples that we have to pay heed to as to what led to this legislation today. The director of legal services has given a history in this report as to some of the issues that came up over the years and that resulted in other amendments that we've debated in this session of parliament and that have occurred in previous sessions of parliament.
For example, in 1989 a 99-year lease was sold on a rental building in Kerrisdale. That gave rise a year later, in 1990, to an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act which required municipal approval for residential leases over 20 years. It is true that people will find ways to get around legislation; developers have to run a business like anyone else. I'm not saying that all of the things that happened are to be condoned. We have to be ever vigilant as to things that may occur. In 1993, to avoid the 20-year lease requirement, there was an example in the city of Vancouver where several consecutive 20-year-less-a-day prepaid leases were a way to avoid the then law. An amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act resulted from that particular example. In September 1993, an amendment was put forward which required municipal approval of any combination of leases exceeding 20 years.
There were other examples. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I believe, referred to the Cypress Gardens case in the North Vancouver district -- only a block, by the way, from the hopefully soon-to-be-started Westview interchange, if I can add that. The novelty of this scheme -- just referring to the city of Vancouver report -- is the sale of a part interest in the whole property coupled with rights to occupy a particular suite. So again we are seeing examples where people have been able to circumvent or avoid in some way the particular rules of the day.
Since that time, we have seen the Arbutus Gardens example. That was in July 1994. That's the one that gave rise to this report that I am referring to. There was the example in West Vancouver, on 2150 Bellevue Avenue, which the member from Lonsdale referred to. That was in October 1994 and dealt with fractional interest sales. In the same month of October last year there was a similar example in Richmond on Gilbert Road. So this was happening all over the lower mainland.
I don't think the previous member can just give credit for the fact that something might have happened in his neighbourhood, or is happening. These things were happening for many months -- in fact, years -- and have given rise to these needed amendments today.
One thing we're going to have to deal with in committee stage, among others.... There are some items in this bill that I think we could describe as housekeeping, but there are other items. The Minister of Finance referred to the essence of the bill being the changes to section 50 of the Real Estate Act and thereabouts. There's an interesting comment that Mr. John Mulberry, who is the legal services director for the city of Vancouver.... He was writing to the Ministry of Finance on September 30 of last year. He makes the observation that "section 50 of the Real Estate Act is a strong contender for the most convoluted piece of legislation one could imagine, and the proposed amendments would add to that difficulty." I'm just flagging that for committee stage. When we get into the added amendments to section 50, we may want to revisit the words of Mr. Mulberry to ensure that we're not making something so convoluted that the solution we're all seeking may be cast aside in the area of difficulty of interpretation.
Putting that aside, certainly we on this side of the House will be supportive of these amendments; but of course, we may very well be introducing some further amendments of our own to try and improve upon this. We all have to recognize that what has happened to date.... In citing the many examples that I've referred to, obviously the rights of tenants.... I can assure the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale that we in the Liberal caucus are very well aware of the concerns of tenants and are certainly more than supportive of protecting residential property, in particular rental accommodation. The council of West Vancouver, the council of the district of North Vancouver and the council of the city of North Vancouver have all expressed concerns about the erosion of residential rental accommodation in particular, and we had to be mindful of those concerns. We will certainly keep that in mind as we move this bill through committee stage.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to just add a few words to the debate on Bill 15, the Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995. When the minister made her comments in second reading, she made a good argument in favour of the bill. But I have to ask the question: what's the rush? This bill, which is more than just a housekeeping measure -- as the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale correctly says; it's an important bill -- was only tabled in this Legislature a week ago. It's an important bill, but we need to know what kind of consultation has taken place prior to this bill coming to the House. And I think the bill needs to see the light of day a little. People in the community, people in the province, should have time to comment on this before it's passed through the Legislature quickly.
What I'd like to do is ask the minister responsible for this bill to wait a little bit. Second reading looks like it will pass today -- approval in principle. I'm certainly going to vote in favour of this bill in principle, because on the face of it, it looks like a bill that I can support and which will be of benefit to a number of my constituents. But I'd like to ask for a commitment from the government that before we go to committee stage, where we go through this bill clause by clause, section by section, we wait ten days or two weeks, so we can get some input from our constituents. I can tell you that I'm starting to get some input from real estate agents in the constituency I represent. I'd like to give them full time to study this bill and pass their comments on so that we can get the kind of accountability we need on this legislation in committee stage. I'm hoping that we'll get that commitment. I'm hoping that there's no rush or panic to push this through quickly without the proper level of scrutiny.
The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale spoke well on this bill about the need to protect purchasers, to protect tenants and not to decrease the supply of affordable housing in the province of British Columbia, which is a big issue. The minister responsible for housing knows that issue very well. I had an exchange with her recently in this chamber on the matter of cooperative associations. I note just one matter in section 1 of the bill: the definition of a cooperative association is changed by an amendment to the Real Estate Act. It's changed and expanded in certain ways so that organizations such as partnerships or limited partnerships can now be defined as cooperative associations. Well, I'm not sure that that in itself is going to do anything to alleviate the problem where cooperatives might be modified, subdivided or changed, where affordable housing is reduced, and where housing co-ops which were created with significant subsidies
[ Page 13903 ]
from taxpayers might be subdivided for the personal gain of occupants of cooperatives. I know the Minister of Housing is planning, and has indicated that she intends to bring forward legislation to deal with that specific issue. This bill doesn't do that. I'm not sure what this amendment does. We are going to have to canvass issues like that one in much more detail in committee stage.
The other major issue that the bill deals with that I've had some feedback on is the disclosure requirements for real estate transactions. On the face of it, that seems to be a good idea as well. But before the bill goes to committee stage and before the government should seek to pass this bill into law, I think we need to let the bill see the light of day a little bit. My only comment today is to indicate that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in his spirited defence of this legislation.
I think we should approve this bill in principle, but not have any rush or panic to pass this bill into law. Before we go to committee stage, let's let a little bit of time pass. The session is still young. A week, ten days or two weeks would certainly benefit me and other members in having the feedback we need from our constituents before we can give this bill the scrutiny it deserves.
F. Gingell: I'll save the minister the need to respond to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi when he deals with the issue of: why the rush? The only reason that we're dealing with this bill so soon is the paucity of a legislative agenda being brought forward by this government. It's a government bereft of ideas and running to the end of its mandate, and that's why we're being required to deal with Bill 15. I suggest to all members that you handle it with care because the print on the paper is still wet, and you don't want to get that print on your hands.
I was supportive of this bill when we started. I thought it dealt with the issue of consumer protection. Until the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale spoke, I didn't realize that it is in fact a sinister socialist plot; that there's a lot more behind this bill than we realize. I thought this bill was a determination to ensure that consumers knew what they were buying and that it was being done in an open manner so that they could know what it was. They wouldn't be buying any pigs in a poke; the padlock on the poke would be unlocked and you'd be able to see what is inside.
[5:00]
I would like to suggest to the minister and other government members that if this is an appropriate method to give people opportunities to become homeowners -- perhaps because these may be lower-cost developments in expensive areas, as may be the case in Vancouver, West Vancouver or North Vancouver -- this may be a means by which first-time buyers can live within the communities they were brought up in and whose real estate prices have made it difficult for them to stay in. The important thing is that this is all done in an open manner, that everybody understands the situation and that there is a level playing field.
This is a bill of open disclosure. I'm pleased that this government has brought it forward. I was surprised that into the issue of this bill were brought the issues of rent controls and other matters. The economists, which I know is the background of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, seemed to be more unanimous -- if there is such a word -- on the issue of rent controls, more on the same side in recognizing that history has told us that rent controls really don't work.
There's been a lot of discussion; you often hear economists discussing the issue of minimum wages and rent controls in the same area, to compare how they are doing. More and more economists, I think, are recognizing that there may be more positive aspects to minimum wages that are done in a sensible manner, and that they aren't the great evil that right-wing economists have indicated in the past. They are not as detrimental to the employment market as has been suggested. But they seem to be becoming more and more unanimous -- or more and more of the same opinion -- that rent controls tend to cause rents to go up, because the free market is restrictive and property owners can look for increases based on cost, even when the market for the properties is weak, and it restricts the growth and development of rental housing.
So I would like for us to focus on what this bill really does, which, I think, is to create a more open disclosure -- both in the area of fractional interests in real estate, and in the role of a real estate agent working for a fee or a commission for the parties involved in the transaction -- to clearly understand who's representing who and where everyone's interest lies. On the basis of those issues, I am happy to support the passage of this bill.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm encouraged by the previous speaker -- at least by his last few comments -- with regard to supporting the legislation, because this is very good legislation. I want to emphasize a couple of points that other speakers have contributed to the debate as well.
While the question "Why the hurry?" has been asked, I want to assure members that those individuals that have been caught by undivided interest, and/or the tenants in complexes that have been put at risk by these undivided interest schemes, are not asking: why the hurry? They're saying: "We want action, and we want action now." The litany of such developments has been fairly extensive this year. There is considerable concern for a number of municipalities, including a number of mayors who are members of the UBCM and have registered very strongly with the province their support for the province acting quickly and decisively to continue to close -- and I want to make that emphasis -- loopholes in legislation to protect consumers, to protect tenants and, in particular, to protect the rental stock and affordable housing.
We've heard from the mayors of the city of Vancouver, of Richmond, of West Vancouver, and the district of North Vancouver -- all lobbying very strongly on behalf of their constituents. I want to congratulate the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, because he has been an aggressive advocate for the tenants and for consumers in ensuring that, again, this legislation gets an additional push into the House to meet those needs.
Let me address a number of specifics and give some context to them. I think that it's really important for us to understand that what we're talking about in the age of the rental stock in British Columbia is that much of that rental stock is now coming to the point in its life span when there is need for considerable investment in bringing it up to code or
[ Page 13904 ]
improving it, in dealing with some of the repairs. Interestingly enough, what undivided interest does, rather than provide opportunities for individuals in investing in home ownership, is provide them the opportunity to share in that repair bill. Undivided interest does not provide them with the opportunity of ownership in that they would have a title free and clear for a unit, but provides them instead with an interest in the full building. If that building is of the older stock of rental building, the cost of bringing it up to code is likely to be considerable. The Seymour Village example.... After talking to a number of the tenants, it's been made pretty clear to us that the upgrade of that building, should it go through the municipal requirement, will be substantial.
Let me use another example of West Vancouver. This was much earlier on; I think it was in the fall. When that particular development was brought to the province's attention, one of the things the tenants brought to our attention at the same time was that the elevator in that building had been condemned. Many of the people who were involved in the undivided interest purchase were not aware of that because the undivided interest avoided the municipal approval process, and there was no full disclosure. That's the importance of this legislation: full disclosure in meeting the Real Estate Act so that people understand that they're not purchasing a free title for a unit but a piece of the total building or the total investment.
Through the approval process that is there to protect consumers, protect the stock and involve the community in making those decisions through the local council, if the council should decide.... Again, the building would be brought up to code and the consumer would be provided with the protection necessary so that they didn't have a huge bill after the fact, in trying to bring that building up to code for the residents.
Those are two very important aspects. As one of the previous speakers indicated, it is the second time that this government has brought to the Legislature numbers of pieces of legislation to close loopholes, and we'll continue to monitor the marketplace. One of the loopholes we were able to deal with was to provide some protection with the Residential Tenancy Act. What that meant for tenants was that in this undivided interest scheme, if the owner of the building wanted to occupy the suite, they would only be classified as an owner if they owned 51 percent. So as many of the members will understand, in a large complex, someone thinking that they're buying a single unit would not be classified under the Residential Tenancy Act as an owner, and therefore could not occupy.
There are some very creative entrepreneurs out in the marketplace who have spent a great deal of time and money in ensuring that their lawyers and accountants meet their needs in avoiding municipal approval processes, the Real Estate Act and the Condominium Act. This government has been vigilant, along with the help of communities, councils and active members like the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in identifying those loopholes and acting quickly to protect consumers, protect the housing stock and protect those investors. I do want to make that point: the model of undivided interest or fractional interest is a useful investment tool if that's what people understand they are using. I can think of....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Absolutely not, member. The practice of undivided interest has been used in law in this province for a number of years. To give a positive example, the vehicle of undivided interest has been used in the recreational real estate market, where a number of people might come together to purchase a chalet or a vacation cabin and then share that property. But it's done so in a way that people understand what they are getting into and, in being fully aware, use that model to their benefit. We are not abolishing that as a model; we are simply requiring the approval process so that tenants are secure, the stock is secure, communities have more control, and there is full disclosure so that when investing and using this model those investors understand what they're getting. Given those comments, I would like to move second reading.
[5:15]
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 15, Real Estate 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.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, this bill amends a long list of statutes, which I'll read to the members so that they know what is contained in it. I'll leave it to members to determine whether or not this is a housekeeping bill.
The statutes being amended are: the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989; the Coal Act; the Expropriation Act; the Family Relations Act; the Insurance Act; the Jury Act; the Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989; the Mineral Prospectors Act; the Mineral Tax Act; the Offence Act; the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988; the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994; Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act; the Power of Attorney Act; the Property Transfer Tax Act; the Public Guardian and Trustee Act; the Social Workers Act; and the Supreme Court Act. I'll elaborate a little more during second reading, soon.
Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee B for the purpose of debating the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
[ Page 13905 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
Hon. J. Cashore: On Friday last, the official opposition Aboriginal Affairs critic and I made our opening statements. I think that has served to frame what will be much of the debate in the House on the Aboriginal Affairs estimates. We both had an opportunity to review each other's statements over the weekend, and I believe that this is going to be a very informative and useful debate in the House in this parliament.
I wanted to just outline a few points with regard to the matters pertaining to the budget for 1995-96. I'd like to put this on the record. It may in fact answer some of the questions that are being anticipated by members of the opposition. The total budget is for $33.709 million for '95-96, and this represents an increase of $1.503 million, or 4.7 percent, over the ministry's 1994-95 budget. Therefore it behooves us to be very diligent about explaining why there is that increase, recognizing the role that the Aboriginal Affairs ministry has in facilitating and building a new and honourable relationship with first nations in the province. There's no increase in budgets for vote 10, the minister's office, or for the First Citizens' Fund special account. There's a $424,000, or a 2.1 percent, increase in the Aboriginal Affairs subvote -- about 11 ministry operations.
There's a $1.079 million, or a 12.5 percent, increase in the treaty negotiations subvote of vote 11. The treaty negotiations subvote increase is mainly for the full-year costs of two additional negotiating teams to continue to represent the province in the treaty negotiations process, and the provincial share of the operating costs of the Treaty Commission and the negotiating costs of first nations within that process.
The Aboriginal Affairs subvote increase is mainly for increased costs of public consultation processes and public education for the open treaty negotiation process, which we committed to last September. Also, it's for increased costs of supporting the treaty negotiation process; for example, the development of treaty mandates.
There is also further explanation of budget increases by particular types of expenditures. For instance, the treaty negotiations subvote increases reflect the cost of the two additional negotiating teams that I referred to earlier, the increase of $696,000 for salaries and benefits for teams, and the increase of $403,000 for associated operating costs, including costs of technical expertise on specific negotiation issues. Within the subvote, there is an increase of $1,406,000 in salaries and benefits, which is for staff involved in public consultation processes and public education, and in the function supporting the treaty negotiations process.
There is also an increase of $436,000 in associated operating costs for these activities. There are offsetting decreases: $349,000 in asset acquisitions to reflect the 1994-95 onetime setup costs for the ministry, and $800,000 in grants and contributions to reflect reallocation to appropriate expenditure categories. For example, the Clayoquot central region board expenditures were budgeted in grants and contributions in 1994-95, and now are budgeted in operating costs. This reallocation is in accordance with government budgeting practices.
A. Warnke: Actually, what I would like to do is follow up on some of the comments. As the minister explained, our opening statements were made last Friday. When we begin to examine, essentially, the operations of the ministry.... I appreciate the minister's comments now, breaking down the dollar amounts -- the various votes -- and offering an explanation; I think that's important.
I would like to follow up a little bit, as well. I guess the best way to proceed here is that.... As the minister said in his opening remark, the attempt by the ministry is to open up the treaty process and, as the minister puts it, have an open treaty process. In fact, the minister on several occasions has made clear his ministry's and the government's commitment to an open process with the public, with third parties and with local governments.
[5:30]
I suppose this is most appropriate, because from my vantage point of being in the official opposition, I have naturally heard from a number of people -- from the public, from third parties, from local governments -- that they really do not feel as if they are a part of a negotiating process. Indeed -- and I think the minister would agree with me -- part of the problem is some misconception that's out there that we're approaching some sort of finality in terms of establishing a treaty. In fact, we are nowhere even near the process. We're not even near the process of establishing an agreement on what the framework of the negotiations would be. Some bands are, obviously, pretty close to that, and the minister made some description of that on Friday. I think, going back to the original statement of the minister, and the government's commitment to an open treaty process -- given some of the description by the minister today -- the operations of the ministry are such that there is funding for negotiating teams.
First, a description of the various negotiating teams and just what is involved in terms of negotiating with the bands is important. I think there is an impression that there are going to be band-by-band negotiations, when the reality is that there is a regional negotiating team that will be going around negotiating on behalf of the government. Some sort of description of that negotiating process is extremely important.
The stage of where we're at in these negotiations is extremely important as well, because many people throughout the province are under the impression that we're near some finality, when in fact we're absolutely nowhere near it. I think that has contributed a lot to the criticism that people are not somehow involved in the process, that there is negotiating going on behind closed doors, and that sort of thing. Those are some points I would like the minister to respond to.
There is another complaint as well. I know the minister and the Premier made a commitment last year to opening up the process with regard to involving municipalities and local governments, but here as well as with third-party interests, their complaint is that they're not really part of the present negotiations and that there is a lot of secretiveness. Let us explore that just a bit. I'd appreciate the minister's response.
Hon. J. Cashore: Before answering the question, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce staff who are here to support me. There's John Walsh, deputy minister; Anne Kirkaldy, executive director of management services; and Angus Robertson, assistant deputy minister of treaty negotiations.
[ Page 13906 ]
I do appreciate the hon. member's question, because it enables me to deal with an issue that is of great public importance. He's quite right that there are some perceptions are out there that are incorrect. I think the hon. member identified the most important of those perceptions, which is that the provincial and federal governments and the first nations are off in a corner somewhere negotiating in secret and that they are about to give it all away. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The first thing to say is that under the Treaty Commission process, which I have referred to in my earlier comments, treaty negotiations have not significantly begun. The treaty negotiations really get going when you get into the negotiations of an agreement in principle. Even though 43 first nations throughout the province have filed statements of intent to negotiate a claim, of all of those who have filed those statements of intent, almost all are in stages one, two or three, which are prior to the stage in which we get into actual negotiations of treaties, which is the agreement-in-principle stage.
There is one significant exception that has to be explained. We are in agreement-in-principle negotiations with the federal government and the Nisga'a. Those negotiations have been going on, on a bipartite basis, between the federal government and the Nisga'a for over 20 years. The provincial government joined those negotiations in 1990, and we are conducting those negotiations under the framework agreement that was signed by the former Minister of Native Affairs of the previous government, who is presently the Leader of the Third Party. It is true that in the Nisga'a negotiations we are constrained by some of the inadequacies in that document, which have now become known as the secrecy clause; but we have made tremendous strides since last September, when the Premier announced the principles of openness, gaining the support of both the federal government and the Nisga'a in seeking to open up even that process a lot more. It's not as open as we would like it to be, and it's not nearly as open as what is being achieved already in the Treaty Commission process.
I point out that already we have openness agreements with a number of first nations, and I will be reading into the record who those first nations are. In many of those instances, those openness agreements actually have been negotiated prior to getting into the discussions of a framework agreement. The kinds of things that we would be seeing happening in the context of those openness agreements would be that.... I believe all of them contain a clause that indicates that openness would be the order of the day.
Confidentiality would be on the rare occasion when the three chief negotiators would mutually agree that an item on the table was in the interest of the negotiation to go in camera. We expect that this will not be a regular occurrence, but we do also recognize that from time to time, in the interest of negotiations, it behooves the parties to be able to have that element of confidentiality. But that will be the exception.
As I have said many times, some of these openness agreements actually provide for cable taping and live cable going into the main table discussions. I think that people will see that and will feel that it's kind of boring after a while, but at the same time they will be reassured to know that they have the opportunity of see what's going on there. Indeed, in some instances I think it will be very informative and very educational.
The hon. member asked, prior to the question about openness, something of the organization of the various negotiating teams that we have throughout the province. We have five regionally based teams. Then we have another team which deals with the generic issue throughout the province, so we have one team based provincewide to oversee the entire process. The regional teams are for the northwest, the north and interior, the south and interior, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.
There has been some news in the media just this past week, going back to the startup of the discussions with the Nuu-chah-nulth up at Tin Wis, near Tofino. Those discussions are now developing a framework agreement. But in that case the three parties achieved an openness agreement prior to the framework negotiations beginning. So you can see that, throughout the province, all of these negotiating teams are hard at work. In the context of openness, they are conducting public meetings, and they are meeting with stakeholder groups. They are in the process of firming up the regional advisory committees, which we refer to as RACs, and the treaty advisory committees in the regions, which are the TACs.
We get into a lot of these acronyms, but the treaty advisory committees basically deal with municipal and regional district interests, to ensure that those interests are represented by the provincial negotiating team in the negotiating process, and the regional advisory committees are more reflective of the community and stakeholder interests in those particular regions. Through those regional advisory committees, we would seek to be having a very thorough opportunity for representation of interests in those communities, whether they be about health care, education, mining, forestry, trapping, guide-outfitting or the interests of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. All those stakeholder interests would be represented within the process.
I would also point out to the hon. member that during the September meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we passed a memorandum of understanding that would ensure that the UBCM could appoint an individual as a member of the provincial negotiating team. The individual would be there not as a negotiator but would be present in the room and able to advise his or her constituents in the municipal sphere with regard to matters of interest that were coming up that they should have an opportunity to advise on, and also to advise the chief negotiator with regard to the interests of that municipal and regional district group.
On top of that, there is work being done around the province to ensure that there are public forums, community meetings and pilot projects, in some cases, that are looking into information centres and on how to work with the community to make those available. We're looking at two pilot projects -- one in Smithers and one in Prince George.
I believe it has been very clear that we have been very diligent about following up on our responsibility to be available to inform the public, to receive the advice of the public and to make sure that advice is represented at the table.
Recently I attended a meeting of one of the regional advisory committees. It was an informal meeting, and I was asked the question: "How do we know when our advice is likely to be accepted and when it's likely to be rejected?" The off-the-top-of-my-head answer -- which I know sometimes sends chills through civil servants -- was that where we have
[ Page 13907 ]
the most amount of consensus, those positions are most likely to be reflected in the actual mandate that comes to the table. If we're achieving consensus on an issue in a regional advisory committee, that will be a very strong position that will be impressing upon our negotiators and upon the government the importance of incorporating that into a mandate. If the community is divided on an issue, then we have to do what we have to do, and that is to apply the best possible decision-making based on the information and the input that we have from the local community.
So openness is in the area of public education; it's in the area of opportunities to respond on the part of the public; and it's in the area of being able to ensure that what the public has to say is reflected in the mandates, so that those regional teams can represent those interests.
[5:45]
A. Warnke: I now want to follow up a little bit on some supplementary questions to the statement just given by the minister. The minister once again has reiterated his desire for openness and, in fact, referred to the announcement he made last September about confidentiality being more the exception. At the same time, the minister also mentioned setting up -- with the negotiations that are coming up -- the various cable systems. I believe the minister also said that the cable television opportunities to the public are both taped and live.
Since the minister had said that it provides some opportunity for the public to have some input on some of the discussions that are taking place, and so on.... I wonder if the minister could elaborate a little bit as to how the public could be involved in monitoring the negotiations. By essentially monitoring the negotiations that are coming in on live television, is there a mechanism or a way in which the public interests could be expressed? For example, the number of groups that the minister referred to -- people who are interested in health care, education, the guide-outfitters and cattlemen.... The latter two are two interesting groups that obviously have some really strong interest in how negotiations on land claims are going to be settled in the northern and eastern parts of our province, as well as on Vancouver Island. I'm wondering how the stakeholders may utilize the process. Has that been pretty well figured out? In other words, how do we encourage stakeholders to express those interests with this service available?
Hon. J. Cashore: The exact way in which the stakeholders are able to influence the development of the mandate that would be taken to the treaty negotiation table would see some variation from region to region based on the local demographics and the local need. We're also very seriously asking local communities to advise us on how best to set up a consultative process.
One typical process would be that you would have various stakeholder groups on a regional advisory committee -- say mining -- appoint somebody. That individual would be one of the individuals in attendance at that monthly meeting. In between meetings, they would often be working on information coming to them that they need to review and that would be background for mandate development. So a regional advisory committee could have a round table consisting of representatives of perhaps 17 to 24 interest groups, and they would be on a representational basis.
They would also have the responsibility to go back to the group they represent and discuss with them their positions with regard to the topics that are coming up for discussion, so they could get a sense of the wishes of their group in terms of a particular issue. We think that process can work very well, but it shouldn't be confined to that. There needs to be ample opportunity for any individual in the community to have access to a meeting to see what's going, and from time to time through open houses, public meetings and public forums to have an opportunity to comment. There are a variety of ways in which this could be done, and we think it needs to be developed in a way that takes into consideration the discussion and suggestions of the local people.
In conclusion and before we adjourn, I just wanted to mention that in the treaty negotiations we have a variety, all the way from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, representing 13 bands, to the Ditidaht, which represents one band. Also, with regard to the makeup of the treaty negotiating team, there would be the treaty negotiator; there would be negotiators who work with the main negotiator -- there could be two or three of those; there would be an assistant negotiator and a secretary; and then, on a consultation basis, there would be legal support and also support services, such as people with archeological training.
With that, I move the committee do now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, Committee A rises, reports resolutions on the estimates of the Ministry of Education, reports progress on the Ministry of Environment, and asks leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore: I wish to point out that the House will be sitting on Wednesday, and I would like to move the House do now adjourn.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
[ Page 13908 ]
L. Fox: Prior to the lunch break, we were talking about section 21 and the limiting effect it has on individuals looking to try administration, to see whether or not that was a field they would want to enter. The minister made some comments that it was not unlike the private sector: once you've chosen to leave your bargaining unit and get into management, you don't have the right to come back.
I drew a scenario which points out that the private sector is different than the public sector inasmuch as management doesn't have to come out of that area of expertise; in the private sector, management can be hired from wherever they wish.
There was one other issue that I wanted to put forward, because I really believe that this issue has to be dealt with proactively by the government, either through an amendment to the legislation or.... I'm not sure whether or not an OIC is even possible in this circumstance. But I really believe that it's in the best interests of education, in smaller and rural school districts particularly, to deal with this issue.
There are two issues in this. If I as a teacher leave my school district and opt into an administrative job in another school district, one issue is portability -- whether or not leave should be granted to an individual from a district while they're into administration in another district. The other issue is whether or not, within the same district, administrators should be able to opt back into their own local because that's where they came from.
Since lunch, I've done some thinking on this, and I think there are a couple of principles that we've accepted, at least at this level....
Hon. A. Charbonneau: And some vice-principals.
L. Fox: That may be. I was talking about principles -- not school principals.
In the minister's own caucus, there are individuals who are on leave from colleges. They chose to go to a new employer and serve the province of British Columbia. At the end of that, should they decide not to run next term or should the electorate decide not to elect them, they have the opportunity to go back to their own local and then back into their college or university faculty. That seems to me to be the very same issue as the issue that we are facing in section 21. I strongly believe that the principles we accept at this level should also apply to the administrative people at the school district level. Perhaps the minister would like to comment.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's really nothing I can add to my remarks of this morning. The government does not intend to pursue some kind of legislative remedy for this. I am aware of the situation. The hon. member has given a good representation of the nature of the difficulty, and I will continue to monitor it.
L. Fox: I would ask the minister to commit to one particular thing: to discuss this openly, and with an open mind, with the association of administrators -- the principals and vice-principals; I am not sure how they are identified -- as well as with the BCSTA. Both bodies are very concerned about this, and I would like some commitment that the minister is prepared to at least discuss the issue with them.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issue has been raised with the K-to-12 employers' association. I think that's the appropriate body to take it to again. You could suggest to them that this is something that they give some thought to. They, in turn, can communicate with the principals and vice-principals organization, and they can also, as is required, broach the subject and any discussions that may be necessary with other central office employees, right up to and including superintendents.
As well, the employers' association, being elected from the BCSTA, would also inform the BCSTA of the process and invite their participation.
L. Fox: Well, I'll go on. I'm a bit disappointed, because it shows that the minister is prepared to allow the values of one group to continue to push the agenda, rather than try to deal with what's in the best interests of all.
However, we've covered the issue for an hour and a half or so in the estimates, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
[2:45]
I want to get on to a few issues around the Electronic Busing program in Nechako. It is my understanding that this was a pilot project and that at some point down the road there would be an evaluation of this project. The first question I have is: does the minister have any idea as to the values that are going to be contained within that evaluation process? What would be the makeup of that evaluation team?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Electronic Bus that the Nechako district has come up with is an idea that's worthy of considerable support. We have funded it in the coming school year as well. At this point in time, there is a bit of uncertainty in our minds as to what the students, on riding the Electronic Bus, are learning. There have been some modified resources; they are using some curricula they have developed themselves. I understand they are using Pathfinder as one way, but we are not completely comfortable that the students are receiving the full provincial curricula to meet all the required learning outcomes to be ready -- if they get off the Electronic Bus -- to carry on in the regular system.
We're funding again next year, but while we're doing that over the summer, an evaluation will be done. Ministry personnel will go up and sit down with the district; I don't know the details of it. Perhaps they will sit down with some of the teachers, and maybe some of the students as well. We will determine if there is any need for concern though an evaluation and assessment that will occur.
We're going to take the optimistic view that when we do the evaluation and assessment, we're going to find that the learning outcomes are adequate, that they are sufficient, and that they do fit into the rest of the learning plan for those young people. On that presumption, at this point in time we have funded it again for the coming year, and we think the idea itself -- of distributing learning through the Net, if you will -- has tremendous potential for a wide variety of reasons, and we remain supportive of it.
L. Fox: Being that this program has some 200 students in it -- many, by the way, who are from the lower mainland, which is kind of ironic, and some not far from where we're
[ Page 13909 ]
standing at the present time are enrolled in the program -- I would hope that there is the opportunity for parents and students around the province to contribute in that evaluation process. That's one point.
I want to talk about a second issue with respect to Electronic Busing. Apparently there is considerable offshore interest in this program. There may be an opportunity for the government and the district to market this program in other countries at a considerable return to the province of British Columbia. The question is whether or not the minister is prepared to explore the opportunities of marketing this. In fact, I understand Mexico has indicated they are interested in it, as well as other offshore interests.
Does the minister look favourably at marketing this kind of expertise on a worldwide basis and giving a return back to the taxpayer, which could be quite substantial?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the merits and potential of the Electronic Bus school are so high that we owe it to ourselves to first do the evaluations that I mentioned. The Electronic Bus has to meet the evaluation assessment accreditation procedures of any other school. Once we've done that, then if there are opportunities for exporting this expertise, we will look into them. We must keep in mind that at the end of the bus trip we're speaking of the Dogwood Certificate, and that is controlled, of course, by the province. The standards for everything that is required are set by the province. It is something that we would likely do at the provincial level -- any kind of outreach, international -- rather than from a district level.
With those provisos, we think this is a good idea. I actually don't find it too ironic, nor would the member for the northern interior, that the folks down on the lower mainland and the Island come to their senses occasionally and recognize the tremendously good ideas that originate in the great interior of British Columbia.
C. Serwa: I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation made by my colleague from Prince George-Omineca with respect to administration and some of the obvious challenges for teaching staff returning to the BCTF. I suppose what surprises and disappoints me is that we have a Minister of Education who is not interested in education for the learner. He is interested in the wages and working conditions of those who teach in the schools. He seems to be in control -- or the BCTF actually has control of the minister and perhaps has control of the Ministry of Education. I always thought that the tail shouldn't wag the dog, but in this particular case, it appears that it does.
The member for Prince George-Omineca has brought forward an issue which is fundamentally apolitical. This is the issue of putting into the system and into the administration the best people -- those who see the reason and the benefit of incorporating change to make the system better for the learner. After all, the ministry and education are there for that specific purpose: they are there for the learner in the system.
Not once have I heard even the slightest indication of concern from the Minister of Education with respect to the learner. The potential of taking those teachers who are inclined to get into management and administration.... This should not be perceived to taint them or to ruin their opportunities of ever getting back into the teaching force. This should not be a penalty or an "us and them" in education. It always seems to me that we have to work together. There should not be some sort of distant relationship with the Ministry of Education, a distant relationship with the school board, a distant relationship with the administrators and then another distant relationship with teachers.
The suggestion is simply not worthy of monitoring; it is worthy of pursuing in an aggressive manner. It's necessary for the best possible opportunity for education. Certainly it will take away a lot of the trials, tribulations and frustrations of teachers who feel that if they get into administration, they could incorporate changes which would make them more effective in their chosen profession.
We do have a lot of professional teachers who really want to do the best possible job for the learner. Here we hear the minister doing nothing but saying: "I want to stay clear of this because this is a trade union issue with the BCTF, and they control a monopoly in education in the province of British Columbia, and therefore we have to stay. We can't upset them, even if it is in the best interests of the learner."
Well, it seems to me that objectivity is important here. The minister should commit at this time to study the question and to enter into a dialogue, if the BCTF is so adversely opposed to it. I know many individuals who have gone into administration and have been long-term in administration. Yet, in the end, they want to and often do return to their first love. The reason they got involved in the teaching profession was to get back into the classroom and have the reward and fulfilment of working with young students, and seeing them grow and develop under them -- leaving a part of themselves.
What the minister is saying is: "We will monitor it, but we are going to deny this opportunity of encouraging the best people, because we are going to make it so doggone difficult that if they find that they are not suited for administration or if they want to get back into teaching, we are going to really teach them a final lesson and lash them once more." Lash them once more and move them back to the bottom of the totem pole, and they lose all of their seniority. I think that's very, very wrong.
Perhaps the minister would rethink this particular question, commit to investigate this matter and enter into dialogue to see whether it can be facilitated. Whether it is in the small schools or in school districts like School District 23, it seems to me that we need the very best people in administration. We need the best possible environment so that the groups can all work together. Perhaps the minister would be willing to look into it more deeply than simply monitoring it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the structured oral report I am about to give on the member, I will certainly give him an A plus for cheek.
We have someone here who represents the very last bit of what is left of the former administration. We have been cleaning up the mess for quite some time -- we are entering our fourth year of cleaning up the mess -- and we've managed to clean up an awful lot of it. This is the member whose party went through a series of extraordinary paid increments in the education system, allowing the extra services and supplies that normally boards have available to offer services to learners. This is the representative of the political party that allowed that number to creep up from about 85 percent of the total budget to around 90 or 91 percent. This is the administra-
[ Page 13910 ]
tion that left behind a bloated administrative structure in our education system. This is the party that attempted to destroy the BCTF by first severing the principals and vice-principals from it and then by setting up the College of Teachers. It was a thinly disguised effort to deunionize the area; they failed miserably in their attempt to do so. But one of the problems that they've left behind is the severing between the educators who deliver in the classroom and the educators in the schools who serve administrative functions. They set out purposely to sever that group and to split those in order that they would set upon each other.
[3:00]
And now, to see the member coming forward and hearing him ask once again that we solve another problem that they left behind, and also state that it must be the BCTF running the show.... Yes, it was the BCTF that came over and whispered in our ear that we should do provincewide bargaining -- that was great with them. And it was the BCTF that came over and whispered in my ear that we should embark on the largest reform of schools by shifting over to applied academics and the introduction of Skills Now. Well, if the member wishes to think that, I guess he can go ahead. There's probably no way that I could disabuse him of that notion.
As government we have made, I believe, some extraordinary strides towards meeting the needs of learners through revised and updated curricula, the injection of current technology and the Skills Now program that is overwhelmingly successful. We are taking the steps to revitalize the apprenticeship system by putting the preapprenticeships into our high school system -- accelerated apprenticeships. We are the ones who are attempting to reinvigorate the shop areas in schools in order to recognize and respect those young men and women who make career choices in other than the academic area. We are the ones who have put extraordinary emphasis on the needs of the learner. In addition to meeting their intellectual and career development needs, we are also the administration that is providing the infrastructure for them to do it in, as opposed to the drought that the previous administration left behind -- an average of $50 or $60 million a year for four or five years when little or nothing was done around this province, by starting the huge portable problem and not addressing the renewal and replacement of facilities. Once again it is this government facing the problem of picking up the mess that the last government left. Given the number of messes that they left, there's little wonder that we are down to but one speaker on their behalf.
C. Serwa: While the minister is waxing eloquent in the political field, I think there was no mess left behind. The average capital construction that went to schools in the previous five years of government -- and we discussed this earlier with respect to allocations for new construction -- has exceeded this government. The commitment to education....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Oh yes, indeed, in the last year it was certainly in the $600 million figure. I don't believe this minister has achieved that type of figure for capital construction. Nevertheless, we did have a minister who was really committed to education. In spite of the tirade, this minister refused to look seriously at the matter with individuals that could and perhaps should be attracted to administration.
But while we're talking about administration, I might say, too, that the Compensation Fairness Act, which your government repealed, had limited public sector salary increases. When you repealed that, you allowed exorbitant increases in wages, which the school districts were ill able to afford. They had cushy negotiations and settled for inordinately high amounts, because they knew that the compensation fairness commissioner would reduce those. Then they found that they were caught out by your current government.
So I suggest that perhaps if there are messes, the public at large will decide who has created the mess. What goes around, comes around. You will have the opportunity before very long, and perhaps that's part of the growing and learning experience.
In talking about administration costs -- and this has been something that the ministry has brought forward at the beck and call of the BCTF, which appears to control the minister and the ministry for their own interest, wages and working conditions; that's obvious -- what is the administration cost of the Ministry of Education itself?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry operations budget is about $64 million. That, I might mention, is the fourth consecutive decrease in that budget. While delivering probably more materials and reform out of the office, we are in fact operating with about 12 percent or 13 percent fewer funds than we were four years ago within the ministry.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister would answer my question with respect to the percentage of costs in the ministry devoted to administration.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not certain what the member opposite is getting at. The ministry operations in total, approximately 400 FTEs, consume about 1.6 percent of the overall Education budget. This 1.6 percent represents about a 13 percent decrease; that sounds confusing. It was 2.2 percent four years ago and is now 1.6 percent, a substantial decrease over that period of time.
If you are looking for the particulars of administration within the ministry, I can give you the administration and support services, which includes the offices of the deputy minister, all staff, operating, asset acquisition, grants, contributions that are funnelled through that area and other minor expenditures. This year it is $14.135 million and last year it was $15.332 million, a decrease of about $1.2 million.
C. Serwa: That is on a gross expenditure of about $65 million. Am I correct on that? So we're looking at a fairly significant administration cost if we look at that as a percentage. We're looking at 18 to 20 percent administration costs in the Ministry of Education when we look at that. Am I correct in that percentage?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the information the member is looking for is such a level of detail that we may have to prepare it for you and send it across.
The number that I gave you -- the $14 million for admin and support services -- includes all of the following branches: the deputy minister's office; finance and administrative services; the corporate systems element; the admin policy and communications; planning and research branch; communica-
[ Page 13911 ]
tions; the correspondence unit -- all the staff that writes all of the ministerial letters and other correspondence; education policy branch; the executive director; legislation; the independent schools legislative services; legislative policy; personnel services; and gender equity.
So there is a lot contained within that $14 million. I can get the breakdown and provide it to you, if you wish.
C. Serwa: I don't think it's necessary to do that. The point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to run an operation, whether it's a ministry or a private business, there is a significant cost with respect to administration. We all recognize and know that.
In a school district there are similar costs in administration that the school district is confronted with, and we recognize that. There are similar administration costs involved with the administrators actually in the schools, the staff that administrates the schools.
In School District 23, I think the administration costs are running somewhere around 3 1/2 to 4 percent of the total budget, and it seems to me to be a most reasonable cost of administration. I think the taxpayer is getting good value for the money. You have to have enough administrators to be able to make certain that the job is done and that the monitoring process, and everything else they're responsible for, is in fact done.
Again, it seems part of what we were discussing earlier: sort of the love-hate relationship that exists between the BCTF and teachers, with administrators in the schools. It seems to me that it doesn't hold any promise of benefiting anyone in that sort of relationship. If the administration costs get out of hand, from the point of view of the ministry, on a comparative basis, that is one thing. But the reality is -- and the minister knows this full well -- that there are costs in administration that have to be looked at. Whether you change the status of the administrator, whether the vice-principal or the principal teaches part-time or whatever, you are still confronted with administration costs. I think that one has been blown all out of proportion and an issue made of it, and I think that fundamentally, in my perspective, it's a non-issue.
I want to ask the minister several questions with respect to the musing that went around this room on school sites. From what I could gather, it sounded as if the minister was in favour of looking at something or -- we've heard this discussion before -- if there's a new subdivision development, that somehow 5 percent would be dedicated to the school district for the school sites.
It doesn't seem to me a responsible tack to take, for a variety of reasons. It really means that perhaps a family just starting out to buy a home in a new subdivision is going to be impacted very negatively with an unduly heavy cost, whereas family B, which buys an older home in an established development or subdivision, is not impacted. It seems to be a selective weighting.
Everyone likes to point at the nasty developer. It doesn't hit the developer at all; it hits on the end consumer, the individual. While the minister was musing about it, I was wondering if he would convey to me that he's serious about pursuing that avenue of funding school site acquisition costs.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it's under active consideration.
C. Serwa: Well, that's really interesting -- and disappointing, too, because you're going to treat British Columbians in a vastly different way. We have property increases; we have tax increases based on appraisal of current market value; we have revenues coming to government from taxation bases on a current market revenue, and somehow we want to turn the clock back and steal sites for schools because it's for the public good. We want not only to do that, but if we do compensate them, we want to compensate them for a lower value, for some value that existed in almost primeval times. It seems neither reasonable nor fair. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable or fair from my perspective to treat people buying a home on a new subdivision any differently than you treat people buying a home on another subdivision. Are you going to make it, perhaps, that anyone after a certain date who buys a new home has to include a 5 percent tax to go to the Ministry of Education? What you're proposing is very wrong indeed. You're treating people in a much different way.
[3:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The hon. member opposite is getting het up about something that he doesn't know the details of yet. I would first suggest that he wait to see whether or not a decision to go any further is made. Second, I suggest that he wait until he has a view of what that might be before he starts becoming overly concerned about scenarios that he is fabricating from thin air.
C. Serwa: I suppose I've heard it often enough: "Trust me -- I'm from the government." But I'm one who would really prefer to make certain that the barn doors are closed before the horses get out and not try to close them after. The minister knows full well that once something is decided upon, it's virtually impossible to stop. I certainly want to make the point now that from my perspective it would be grossly unfair to British Columbians to treat British Columbians in different manners. Education is a cost that we all have to share, and we willingly share. It's our investment in the future. It seems to me that the distribution of it has to be equitable and shared that way, among all British Columbians. We may differ on that.
The minister waxed eloquent this morning on the properties above Port Coquitlam, the sale of lands and the reference that there were no sites made available for school sites. The property was sold in a large block. The property does create tax revenue for the Crown when the funding comes for education. The minister feels that it was shortsighted not to plan where the school sites could go. No one had any plan of the development of the area; there was no specific plan. It was a block of land the Crown owned. The rapidly growing community required more sites for more residential properties, and the school district was not confronted with any undue or unrealistic cost of acquiring school properties. The cost of servicing all of those properties had to be borne by the developer. It's not as if we sold it for so much and nothing had been done and we bought it for a larger sum. There were the roads, the sewer and water. All of that infrastructure had to be paid for by the developer and borne by the developed properties. The minister knows that full well.
So to say that it was somehow shortsighted in planning and that there was a legacy of large messes is really wrong indeed. It is as ridiculous to make that type of statement as it is to say: "We should have built a four-lane bridge on Lake
[ Page 13912 ]
Okanagan. It was the lack of vision of the people who built the bridge some 40 years ago that created the problem." I don't think that type of dialogue will get us anywhere.
I want to talk briefly on some aspects of the curriculum, specifically with respect to physical education in grades 11 and 12. I note that in December 1993, the program included physical education in grades 11 and 12. It's been brought to my attention that physical education now is not mandatory in grades 11 and 12. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, physical education is not mandatory in grades 11 and 12. It was a decision made by the previous administration. I recall that in Kamloops, when our daughters were going through high school, they did not need to take phys ed, and that was back in the eighties. It's just one more little mess that this government has to clean up.
We have, however, raised the profile of phys ed by saying that it could meet the requirement for the two credits of applied skills that must be obtained. If the elements of phys ed tie into what might be the career plan of the young person, through community activities, community plan or service organizations, they can count their phys ed. I believe that will encourage a lot of young men and women to take at least two credits of phys ed in either grade 11 or grade 12. I would encourage them to take phys ed in both years.
C. Serwa: I am heartened by the words of the minister in this particular case. I can't debate history with the minister, because I haven't followed that that closely. As far as I am concerned, from every aspect -- whether it is preventive steps to improve the health of our students or of our population -- it is very, very important that a healthy lifestyle be promoted all the way through the educational process.
It was my understanding that schools were not even required to provide physical education for grades 11 and 12 students, and I am very concerned about this. If there is going to be any incentive -- if the applied skills merits will work for those who are going to utilize physical education in their careers, perhaps becoming instructors or something like that -- the same type of incentive should be there for all students.
I don't think we can do enough to encourage young people to have healthy bodies. I think the native tradition of the four elements of health -- the mental, the emotional, the spiritual and the physical -- are very, very important. They are all tied harmoniously together. There has been a tendency in the school system to fail to recognize the merits of physical education for students. If we start, in subtle ways, to deny the initiative and the incentive, then society is going to pay a very, very high price.
I think the minister is fully aware of what awareness of physical activity is doing for our aging population -- whether it is slow-pitch softball or curling or a variety of other things. We are finding that we have a healthier, more active seniors population than we have ever had. I would suggest that if there is any concern with the protection and preservation of medicare as we know it, we had better be proactive and use preventive measures to ensure that our population has a very healthy lifestyle.
I would really encourage the minister to consider allowing credits for physical education and to ensure that it remains as a subject in our senior secondary schools. I think, other than for reasons of inability, all students should partake in physical education.
The other concern that I will bring to the minister's attention is what I call the Vancouver funding formula. It has been incorporated into the ministry funding formula over this past year. While the attempt has been to simplify a very, very complex type of formula, it appears to have had negative results for a number of the school districts in the interior of the province -- and perhaps English as a second language is one of the real reasons that our school district and others have been negatively impacted by that funding formula. Is there a provision for the allowance of an adjustment period in that formula, in particular for a district like School District 23, which is, again, a very rapidly growing school district? It has probably grown an average of 5 to 6 percent per year for the last six years.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The new funding system that has been brought in replaced a tremendously complex system or fiscal framework. Many trustees -- even trustees who had served on boards on several occasions -- complained to me that they couldn't understand it. MLAs who have been around for a while said that they couldn't understand it. Teachers and parents who, from time to time, would have interest and would try to understand why their district received such-and-such an amount couldn't understand it.
In the spirit of being like a cleanup batter, I'm the one who is the designated cleanup minister in one more little mess from the previous administration that we have set straight. The new system is not only fair -- and it's not a Vancouver system or a B.C. system -- but it is fair to every district. It is also imminently understandable. It can be explained in two pages, and then, for half a dozen items, there needs to be a bit of backup. It replaces what used to be an impenetrable 12-page or 15-page document.
Primary students in Kelowna, for example, receive $3,114, which is the identical amount that every other school board gets for a student in primary years. All the other funding factors are identical. The special needs funding is identical. Kelowna gets a different amount from some other districts on some items such as the number of kids in special needs, the average educator experience, the average educator salary, the geographic or the operation.... But each one of those variations is completely explainable from district to district.
As a result of switching to the recognition of actual educator salaries rather than an average provincial educator salary, over the next three years Kelowna will lose some $124,000 out of a budget of about $115 million. We're talking approximately one-tenth of 1 percent. I have sheltered them from that loss entirely with a 100 percent special purpose grant this year, a 50 percent grant next year and 25 percent grant the following year. This will allow them to absorb even that adjustment of one-tenth of 1 percent.
Generally speaking, over the last five years Kelowna has had a 28 percent increase in enrolment and a 44.5 percent increase in funding. Kelowna is being treated fairly, along with every other district, in a much simplified and superior funding system. The B.C. School Trustees' Association is fully supportive of it.
C. Serwa: I thank the minister very much for that explanation. Certainly it's very nice to hear that Kelowna has been treated very well and fairly in cleaning up the gigantic mess that the former administration left behind. But I note that we have more portables in our school district than we've ever had before.
[ Page 13913 ]
Interjection.
C. Serwa: From my understanding, probably the province has more portables than the province has ever had before. So I presume it's a bit like the balanced budget we heard so much about recently. We don't focus on doubling the debt, but we talk about the balanced budget when we've simply off-loaded onto the debt.
The reality is that there is a very serious situation in the Central Okanagan School District. It appears that we will continue to have those numbers of new students from natural growth and from migration and immigration into our particular area. We do need new schools. We have a number under construction, but certainly one of the schools is Kelowna Secondary, a school that has had a useful life -- and I've talked to the minister about this; not Kamloops Senior Secondary, hon. minister. There is a great deal of public safety concern with respect to the type of construction of the building and the fact that it has outlived its usefulness. It's an example of one of the schools where the planning has been in since 1991, I believe, and the reality is that funds were allocated. It was on a program for construction, but somehow that program has been put on hold. With the expansive construction funds the minister was talking about, I don't know that we've seen a reasonable or a fair share of them going to Kelowna, which has a rapidly growing school population.
[3:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to say that the Kelowna and the central Okanagan districts have been treated more than fairly in the allocations over the last three years since we assumed office. The funding to the Central Okanagan School District for capital projects from 1992 to 1994 is $77 million. In the elementary system that has allowed there to be a substantially fewer number of students in portables, both in absolute numbers and percentages. In 1991 there were just about 2,000 in portables -- enrolment versus capacity. In the fall of 1994 that had been cut to about 1,000, even though the enrolment had increased substantially. In the secondary schools the absolute number of students in portables remains at around 1,200. It was that way in 1991. In 1994 it was maybe 1,300, but we have added about 1,000 in capacity. So we're just keeping up with the enrolment growth on a percentage basis at the secondary level.
Currently, there's $60 million for active projects underway in various stages, where their budget is already approved. They include the new Glenrosa Junior Secondary, the Chief Tomat and the new Scotty Creek Elementary, and many others. Number one on the wish list for the current year is Kelowna Secondary, a complete replacement of an existing school. That would cost in the order of almost $28 million as a single project. When I finalize the capital plan for the coming year, as I will be doing over the next couple of weeks, all I can say is that, along with 74 other districts, Kelowna and central Okanagan will be treated fairly, as they have in each of the last three budgets of this administration.
C. Serwa: The last questions I have, perhaps a small series of questions, have to do with funding of native schools in the public school system. It is my understanding that the federal government provides some funding for status native students within the public education system. I am not certain what that figure amounts to per student, but I would like to know. I would further like to know the figure that is utilized for the funding of urban native students, be they status or non-status, in the school district. I would like to separate the federal portion that is turned over to the province, and also find out what the province is contributing per student for urban native students in the education system.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The federal government paid $74.9 million on behalf of 10,310 status natives living on reserve. That included $5 million for what we call accommodation charges -- space-related charges. Leaving that off, then, it's just under $70 million provided for the 10,310 students.
C. Serwa: Does the minister or the ministry have the figure per student? I don't have a calculator here. The other aspect is that the minister makes reference to space. Am I to assume that this is for space requirements within the existing school system, that a capital provision is utilized? Or is this for school systems that are established on band land, for example?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The federal government pays on behalf of status aboriginals at the rate of the individual school board. The total across the province is just under $70 million. If you divide that out by 10,310, I suppose you would see that it's something around $6,700 or $6,800 on average per FTE. The accommodation part has to do with funds that we felt the federal government owed us in addition to the amount that they pay for operating costs. If we have seats for those 10,310 students, it means that we have had to build infrastructure to accommodate. That is an additional charge that we wish to make to the feds. They have ignored us, although we have received in this past fiscal year a $5 million compensation from the federal government for past accommodation charges -- part of the bill we've been trying to collect.
C. Serwa: The last question: from the Ministry of Education's standpoint, is there a difference in the funding per FTE student for status and for non-status? Are they funded equally to the school district, or is there a differential in the funding for the status and the non-status native?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the year that we are in -- mostly last fiscal year -- the funding is equal for status and non-status, on-reserve, off-reserve. The amount that the province supplies for aboriginal language and culture programs, which we supply at an additional amount to boards, is also equal, whether it's on or off reserve.
C. Serwa: I thank the Minister of Education very much for his sometimes controversial responses; nevertheless, I sincerely thank him.
W. Hurd: I have a few questions to ask on behalf of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who couldn't be here this afternoon. My colleague has been in contact with the chairperson of the board of school trustees in Surrey, and there are some specific questions that the board has urged the opposition to ask during the course of these estimates. They are a very brief series of questions; I just want to run through them.
The first question that comes via the board is: will the Minister of Education commit to reviewing the operating
[ Page 13914 ]
funding formula to determine what factors are creating the inequities between the school districts in the area of per-student funding? This is an issue that I know we canvassed at some length. Clearly the chairperson of the Surrey School Board seems utterly convinced that in fact there are some inequities there. I wonder if the minister could make that commitment to the chairperson of the board during the set of estimates today.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The remaining areas to be looked at, in order to bring complete equity to the system, are issues related to growth districts, issues related to large districts and issues related to small districts. Then there are the so-called operation and maintenance costs, where there is some disagreement between districts as to exactly what that factor should be.
I started a two-step process last fall. There is consultation going on now with respect to the other issues, several of which Surrey is interested in. I will be making the second and final set of changes to the funding distribution this fall, and we will then recognize and correct -- through redistribution -- any of the remaining areas where there is question about equity.
W. Hurd: The second question in fact relates to that review, which is to be completed by the fall. The board chairman and the board are concerned that Surrey and other rapid-growth districts have not been fairly compensated, and will not be fairly compensated in this review, with respect to the effects of continued long-term large student growth. I think there's a concern of past inequities over previous fiscal years which the board is concerned may not be addressed in this review to be completed in the fall of 1995. I guess the question again, on behalf of the board here, is whether or not the review is going to backtrack in any way to look at any inequities that may have built up through the course of three or four fiscal years, given the dramatic growth which the minister alluded to earlier in this set of estimates of some, I think, 10,000 students over five fiscal years.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Last year I obtained from Treasury Board -- and then distributed -- funds to some districts based on high growth. All those districts that had a growth above a certain threshold received an additional amount of money. Surrey, under that arrangement, received a considerable sum. I have rolled that amount into the block -- it has been made a permanent part of the block -- and that went a long way towards dealing with the ongoing challenge of growth in Surrey.
We'll deal with the process of consultation I've made reference to through the summer, along with the other issues; I will report back to the system the second set of changes in the fall.
W. Hurd: The final series of questions comes via Mr. Dan McEwen, who I understand is the manager of capital services for the Surrey district. He's indicating through the board that $93 million was requested for the fiscal year '95-96, less $20 million that was allocated in the fall of '94, which in his opinion leaves little capital for the opening of 100 classrooms needed in Surrey each year, just to keep up with demand. Only 29 classrooms, in fact, will be opened under the current budget.
He goes on to mention that it's been estimated that Fraser Heights and Clayton senior secondary schools will need $1 million and $1.3 million this year just to meet the growth. And even then, with 44 to 50 students per classroom, another secondary school will need to open in a year.
I guess the question the board is putting to all MLAs -- and it certainly will be addressed at the meeting that I have alluded to on May 12 -- is that there's real concern that the proposed budget for '96-97, which is $114 million, and $78 million for '97-98, can't possibly meet the needs to open as many classrooms as will be required with the increase in enrolment. Indeed, the board is reporting to me that by the year 2000, 600 portables will be on school sites unless there are real changes to the budget.
[3:45]
I raise those issues on behalf of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been in contact with the board chairman. I also advise the minister that there is a meeting between the board of trustees and the Surrey City Council on May 12. I understand the minister has been requested to attend the meeting and is unable to, but there was representation made to the deputy minister, Cynthia Morton. The last correspondence I had from Mayor Bob Bose indicated that they had not heard back from the deputy minister's office on that meeting.
Perhaps I could suggest to the minister that this is an important meeting at the school board offices on May 12. There has been a request for representation from the minister's office, and I would hope that there would be an opportunity for Mr. McEwen, for Edmund Caissie, chairman of the board, and for others to participate in a more direct discussion with respect to the issues that I've raised here today.
I wonder if the minister could comment on the capital budget for Surrey and on the fact that the board is extremely concerned about being able to meet the needs of Surrey students.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have covered extensively the capital projects that have been underway in Surrey in the capital budgets over the past four years. I'm not going to go back over all the details, but I must say that Surrey has received great assistance from the provincial government in the past four years with respect to meeting that challenge. The total in '89 through '94 of almost $380 million is nearly twice as high as the next district. I recognize, at the same time, that the growth rates in Surrey have been the greatest in the province.
We will continue to treat Surrey in its construction as fairly as we can. Last year our total requests exceeded $1,100 million, and we were able to act on about $450 million of that, which meant that there had to be one or two that you said no to for each one that you said yes to. Surrey has its needs, but there are 74 other districts that have their needs as well, and we have to find a way to treat all of them fairly, while dealing with the most outstanding overcrowding problems.
Certainly the number of portables in Surrey will never remotely approach the 600 figure, because there are many active projects underway. No doubt, as years go by, additional projects will be approved.
[ Page 13915 ]
With respect to the question passed through the chair to the minister to the deputy, I have been advised that someone.... We're not aware of the letter from Surrey, but if you could provide me with the details, we will certainly have somebody at that meeting.
Madam Chair, I wonder if I might read into the record a response to questions raised yesterday by the hon. member for Richmond East. There were a number of allegations made in a letter and then read by the member, and I wanted to reply for the record in Hansard.
D. Symons: Could someone ask one more question? I'll bring the member here.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Well, we could do that. Does anybody else have a question?
The Chair: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Omineca-neca-neca, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.
The Chair: Decorum, ladies and gentlemen, decorum.
L. Fox: The minister sings. I can assure him that I sing every morning when I wake up in my riding, because it is such a grand spot to live. I welcome him singing as I stand.
I mentioned earlier this morning that I would like to talk around.... Earlier in the estimates, the minister talked about the need for choices within the system. Certainly that's where I come from in terms of education. We should provide choices for students and parents within our educational system.
Before I get into that, I want to offer one more observation on section 21. It came to me after I finished speaking on it. In my district we have at least one individual who had been seconded by the ministry to work on provincial testing. That individual worked for the ministry for two years and is now back in the district -- and indeed back in the classroom -- without loss of seniority. This is another indication that in many other ways we recognize that seniority should be honoured in terms of individuals doing service elsewhere within the Ministry of Education. I ask the minister once again to keep in mind that there are all kinds of examples out there where we protect the seniority of teachers while they go off and do other things. I would expect him to keep those principles in mind when he reviews section 21 of the School Act.
Now to get back to the point. Early in the estimates, the minister said that he, too, agreed with choices within the school system. I think, however, that there were some differences over what we felt the choices were. But I want to put before him and the committee the issue that was identified in the Times Colonist today, in terms of the problems that an alternative school called South Park is having with respect to being forced to issue letter grades when, indeed, the whole structure of the school is around an anecdotal system of reporting. I know that the school has made presentations to the ministry to try to have the ministry recognize the values of its school and what it is it is attempting to achieve. At this point, it has not received any assurance from the minister that it will be able to continue to offer an anecdotal reporting system versus the letter grades.
If that is the case, then really the true idea of alternative schools has very little chance. I would think the true test here would be how the students succeed in the workplace, the community and post-secondary education -- versus top-down instruction in how the reporting should be done. The minister might want to comment on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I would like the record to show that the opposition has asked so many questions that the poor minister has talked his throat out and now has to suck on cough drops while answering. After listening to parents across the province, I said that we were going to reinstitute letter grades in those schools in early intermediate grades, 4 through 7, where they had dropped them. I also said that we were going to shift from the anecdotal report, which had acquired a reputation of being a can-do report where only positive things were said about the child, to a structured written report, which is a comprehensive written document that has a lot of information in it. I gave districts an option. The letter grade must be prepared by the teacher, but if parents do not wish to see the letter grade in a written report, the teacher can keep the letter grade and share it, if the parent requests it, in a consultation.
South Park is under instruction to follow the regulations that every other school is following. They can still have written reports. It's now a structured report which must give a balanced view to parents and clearly identify if there are any problems. They do not need to include the letter grades on the report card, but they do need to prepare them and keep a record of them. It is my view that if parents prefer letter grades, and if parents ask how their children are doing and want the answer in terms of letter grades, the parents have the right.
The staff at South Park -- and I have met with that organization on several occasions; an excellent school with a wonderful staff -- can continue to do things the same way they have been doing them. They can use every kind of learning method and learning device; everything can carry on. They are going to put out a structured written report rather than an anecdotal, but it's still written. If they wish to keep the grades for the personal consultations between the parent and teacher, they can do so. Otherwise they must conform with the law, the act and the regulations.
L. Fox: It seemed to me, as I read the article, that obviously the values of the school were designed with considerable discussion between parents, teachers and students. Indeed, when parents bring their children to that school they opt for that kind of reporting system in making the decision to send their children there.
I appreciate where the minister is coming from. The only question I would have is how much time a teacher would have to put into developing a letter grade and whether or not that's a good use of that time. If parents have opted for anecdotal reporting in placing their child there, what purpose would there be in them spending that time and effort on producing a letter grade, if they wouldn't intend to use them and if parents didn't opt for that when they put their child there?
Is there some use for the ministry, in evaluating a school, to have access to letter grades? Is that the reason behind it? What would the reason be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was a great deal of discomfort among parents with respect to the reporting system that
[ Page 13916 ]
was in place. There was a strong desire to see a little bit more structure brought back into the system. As I've said, South Park can continue to operate in the same way that it has been operating.
The additional amount of time that an educator requires to assign and record a letter grade is a very small amount of time. They will be putting much more time into the preparation of a good, structured written report.
Again, it is my view that we need to have one set of regulations and one act that apply across the province. The only children who are excluded from receiving letter grades are special needs children. Whether they're in an alternative school or a regular school, children now receive -- between grades 4 through 7 -- a structured, written report and letter grades.
South Park cannot request, under a designation of alternative school, to be excluded from a ministry order that applies to all alternative schools and to regular schools.
D. Symons: Just a little question for the minister, again regarding a school in Richmond, but I think it might apply to others. I'm reading from today's Globe and Mail. It's an article dealing with "Waiting for the Big One," to do with earthquakes. This, of course, will relate to Burnett school in Richmond. This article says:
"...what happens in a quake depends substantially on preparations for it, according to Swiss Reinsurance Co., a Zurich-based firm that carries earthquake risk for its clients.
"What makes the difference between disasters begins with awareness.... Buildings and bridges have to be reinforced, water and gas mains engineered for quakes and elevated highways adapted to earth movement. Yet the question remains -- how much preparation is enough? ...In spite of the demonstrated losses from earthquakes in California, British Columbians are not rushing to prepare for the Big One.
"It is difficult to get people to make large financial commitments to deal with an event that is not certain to occur in one's lifetime in structures that may be obsolete before the quake happens."
[4:00]
I guess that's all leading up to where Burnett school falls in your estimate of schools that do need to be upgraded because of earthquake concerns about the building. I gather Burnett has the parents, anyway, quite concerned about that. The minister, in my meeting with him about a month ago, made some comments when I asked about Burnett and about the fact that they're trying to do the upgrading of the school, as far as earthquake preparedness goes, at the same time that they are doing additions to the school. Do you have some priorities you place on various structures -- schools within the province -- according to their earthquake susceptibilities, and where does Burnett school fall in that category?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Any new school, of course, is built recognizing all existing codes and hence would be built to meet the new seismic risk codes. For any school that is going through a substantial renovation -- not a minor item or a minor addition, but a substantial renovation -- we are seizing that opportunity to do seismic upgrading at the same time. So the order in which schools will be retrofitted will concur with the overall priority for the need for renovations based on the standard factors.
It's a very large item. If you were to take schools, hospitals, bridges -- vital infrastructure -- it would not be difficult to imagine the need for $10 to $12 billion. So it's not an issue that one can take lightly either way. It is not one thing we can afford to ignore, and we are not. We are not doing stand-alone seismic upgrades, because it becomes too expensive to do a stand-alone and then a renovation subsequently. So we're combining that for some cost-efficiency. On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine how much the total bill could be and whether or not government could afford it over a reasonably short period of time.
D. Symons: I guess earthquake preparedness is a bit of a 6/49 gamble as to whether it will happen this year, next year or many years in the future. I believe Burnett is in for some major additions in the next few years. When those additions are put in, I can see that the additions will be made to current earthquake standards. My question to the minister is: when these major renovations and additions are made to Burnett, will the whole building be brought up to current standards, or will just those portions that are additions to the building be made to those standards?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I may have to get a more detailed answer back to you. There isn't a rigid policy with respect to how far into an older part of the school, where a reno is occurring, the policy of seismic upgrade is followed through on. The district would have a responsibility to assess the school and identify to the ministry the areas of the school that they think would require structural upgrading. They would identify that in the process of applying for capital moneys. It may also be uncovered in the design or planning phases of a project. But there is no set answer, no one answer, to the question you have asked on renos generally.
As to the specifics for Burnett school, I could get them from the facility's staff and provide them to you.
D. Symons: I would appreciate it if you could get the information. If the school board hasn't notified the ministry of what it feels the retrofitting needs for the whole building are, I think it would be advisable for them to do that at this time, before those renovations begin.
At this time I have no further questions, and I'm not sure whether anyone else does. I will let the minister close.
The Chair: Shall vote 22 pass?
W. Hurd: I understand the minister wanted to read into the record a response to the member for Richmond East.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I was going to try to slip this in between vote 22 and vote 23, but I can do it now just as easily. This has to do with the letter the member for Richmond East read yesterday with respect to a dispute with a supplier. First, they tendered and were third in that process, based on standard criteria. We have some cost issues with the company about overduplication, and they alleged non-payment of invoices. The matter is under negotiation between the parties' lawyers, but we will now meet with them on the advice of the lawyers. The advice from the Attorney General had been to not enter into substantive debate or discussion. We have double-checked just in the last 24 hours, and the Attorney General's advice now is that we can now meet to discuss the issue.
We have not indicated to any school district or video distributor that we would not purchase licences if their titles
[ Page 13917 ]
were held through Image Media. The director of the learning resources branch never indicated that the learning resources branch should be shut down because it was inefficient. We are evaluating the performance of a new contractor based on objective criteria, and they are performing very well. The new vendor is in Burnaby with five staff.
We released parts of a draft audit to ensure that all competing vendors understood the controls and procedures that we required of a service provider. Image could not use their catalogues once they lost the contract, because they could no longer use Crown copyright properties. We are evaluating, through an audit, the services of the learning resources branch. We do so every five years, as an automatic period, to ensure that districts are getting high-quality service. The last survey of the district was done in the fall of 1992, so it is a routine re-evaluation.
The learning resources branch required schools to erase some videotapes due to a video licence requirement; however, these kinds of arrangements are becoming fewer and fewer.
W. Hurd: I have one final question relating to the annual reports that each school district is required, under the School Act, to compile each year. I know that the auditor general, in reviewing the activities of school boards, had made a series of recommendations with respect to the annual reports submitted by districts. He expressed concern that there was no standard criteria from the ministry with respect to what should be contained in the reports. The issue specifically raised by the auditor general was the need to establish some sort of benchmark, or standard way, of measuring educational performance in the districts. I wonder whether the ministry has taken any action on the recommendations of the auditor general and whether or not we can look forward to a more standardized practice from the various boards on the type of annual report they file and, more importantly, the content that should be contained in the annual report.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All districts were informed last year of a new ministerial order with respect to what would be in the annual reports. It is set out very, very closely. They even have a computer disk, and they can look at the document on it to see precisely how we think the reports should be structured. I believe it is highly desirable to have a standard report, such that communities, parents and boards throughout the province can look at their own performance from year to year and also compare their performance to other districts. You can only accomplish that if you have a standard reporting process. We have acted on that. I fully intend to follow through completely with standard achievement indicators, and I'm doing so as one of the agenda items that I have, which is the accountability agenda.
Vote 22 approved.
Vote 23: ministry operations, $3,989,494,000 -- approved.
The Chair: That concludes the estimates for the Ministry of Education. We are in a position to move on to another set of estimates; I understand the Minister of Environment is ready. We can take a five-minute break while we readjust.
The other point I want to draw to your attention is that you are aware that summary speeches will be made in the big House at some point. I'm not sure that that has been settled at this time. Members of the committee who want to listen to them should keep an eye on the time. Our House leaders will tell us when that's happening. We stand recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
On vote 30: minister's office, $399,564.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, in your absence, the opposition said they were looking forward to a riveting opening address on the part of the minister, and I wouldn't want to disappoint them in any way whatsoever.
Let me start by making a number of opening comments. I really want to start by talking a little bit about the vision that this administration brings to public office. We're proud of the fact that here in British Columbia our government has the best job creation record in Canada, and that we have the highest credit rating in Canada and at the same time the highest environmental rating of all governments in Canada. What we've demonstrated is that we as an administration believe that jobs, economic growth and environmental protection complement one another -- they go hand in hand. All too often in this province, we have seen political parties -- the opposition and, certainly, previous governments -- which took the view that the world was one which pitted economic development against environmental protection. As part of our vision as a provincial government, we believe that the reason the province has enjoyed such a robust economy is largely because of the environmental attributes that this province has to offer.
People want to live in British Columbia because of our clean air, our clean water and our parks system. Thirty thousand jobs a year are created in the Vancouver area. We as an administration have made it a priority to protect green spaces in the Vancouver region and to make sure that the amenities which attract people to invest in Vancouver and the lower mainland remain so that we can achieve our objective of tripling the number of green spaces. We most recently announced the Indian Arm proposal. We have yet another one to announce on Thursday, and there will be further developments in this regard from government.
As an administration, we have engaged the province in an extensive land use planning process. Again, believing that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand in hand, we've challenged communities throughout British Columbia to sit together at round tables on land use -- CORE and the like -- on Vancouver Island and in the Kootenays and the Cariboo and to come together as communities and develop land use zoning processes and plans so that resource communities, forest communities and forest-dependent communities in British Columbia know where the jobs are going to come from and so that they have some certainty in terms of where there will be logging activity. At the same time, we can protect the biodiversity of the province through protecting representative ecosystems and fulfilling our election commitment of doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia.
[ Page 13918 ]
Salmon. We recognize that there's an important interface that occurs between the integrity of our forest industry and the integrity of our fisheries in British Columbia. As an administration, we recently have brought forward the toughest riparian zones in Canada to ensure that there is no logging adjacent to streams to impact on fishing. There are riparian zones up to 50 metres where there is no harvesting and up another further 30 metres to ensure that there's only special management criteria in place for logging activity. This is a way for our government to say that when there is an interface between forestry and fish, we will protect the integrity of the salmon resource in British Columbia and ensure that there's no damage caused to our streams in this province. We're protecting the integrity of the environment, the streams, the banks adjacent to streams and rivers, and the salmon resource in British Columbia because of the significant economic, cultural and social impact that our fisheries represent to the province.
Clean air. Our government has made it a priority to bring forward the toughest automobile emission standards in North America, in part because we have seen and witnessed studies. For example, a study released in May 1993 by the GVRD indicated that if we had not taken the actions that we as an administration had taken, there would have been catastrophic health consequences for British Columbians. If we brought forward tough automobile emission standards, 2,800 premature deaths would be prevented. The 33,000 visits to emergency clinics due to respiratory problems would be averted if we brought in these kinds of standards. If we brought them in, $74 million in crop damage in the Fraser Valley alone would be prevented. We've said that we will bring forward the toughest automobile standards in North America, and I expect to be able to make a further announcement with regard to that next week.
I should also say that the reason we're doing that is not only that it's good environmental policy -- it keeps our air clean and our health costs down -- but it's good economic policy. By the establishment of the clean air policy and the encouragement of zero-emission vehicles -- vehicles that do not pollute at all -- we are developing technologies in British Columbia like the Ballard bus technology and the Ballard fuel cell. We have built a transit bus that looks like a bus and rides like a bus, but you wouldn't know it was fuelled by a hydrogen fuel cell. It emits no pollutants into the air.
That kind of linkage between the environment and good economic development is what we in this government believe in; that is our vision. That's why I had the privilege to be in Los Angeles earlier this year to showcase the Ballard bus and to show the people of Los Angeles, who will require 2 percent of their vehicles on the road to be zero-emission vehicles by 1998, that there is a technology which we can take from the drawing board right down to the driveway. We can demonstrate to people that there is a technology -- made at home, here in British Columbia -- that attends to these problems.
That is part of our administration's vision, and it's a vision which I know is not shared by the opposition Liberals. They have said that their first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. The Leader of the Opposition, in speeches and commentary that he's made, said that he would get rid of environmental regulation. I can't help but wonder to what degree that means he would get rid of the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards that have been developed in North America. Our administration brought those forward in 1992. I should say that there's a lesson to be learned in that. Industry said it couldn't be done, that it was too expensive and that it wasn't technologically feasible. The opposition agreed.
Let me say also that we as an administration not only brought forward those regulations, but we insisted that industry meet them -- and they are the toughest regulations in North America. By 1994, I was congratulated by the industry for not only meeting, but exceeding the standards that we had set for it. The industry made a billion-dollar investment, and it developed a technology. This goes to prove that if governments are firm in their convictions, stand up passionately to defend those values and demand that environmental regulations will proceed for the protection of human health, ecosystems, and fish and wildlife in the province, then industry will react. But if you're going to succumb, negotiate and weaken your position, then obviously industry will succeed in continuing some of the pollution that we've seen here in the past.
Shellfish areas that were once closed are now open. Heron that weren't hatching are now hatching in Howe Sound. Those pulp mill effluent discharge standards, which the opposition says would be one of the regulations that they'd get rid of, have demonstrated the distinction between those on this side of the House and those on the other side. When the Leader of the Opposition says that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulations, I don't know if he's talking about pulp mill effluent discharge standards, but I know this: given the degree to which he is supported by some of the large corporate interests on Howe Street, there is a good probability that that regulation would go.
Or is the Leader of the Opposition talking about CFCs and the toughest standards in Canada with regard to the elimination of ozone-depleting substances? We brought in those regulations. The opposition says that their first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. I wonder if that's what he's talking about.
You know, hon. Chair, pulp mill effluent discharge standards, ozone standards and the standards we brought into riparian zones to protect fish are all regulations that the opposition said would be their first priority to get rid of. Much to my disbelief, I keep hearing the Energy critic for the opposition continually saying in the Legislature that he sees nothing wrong with mining -- let's say strip-mining -- in parks in British Columbia.
He says that with regard to the internationally renowned park that we've established, the Tatshenshini, in the northwest corner of British Columbia.... It's a splendid area if anyone has ever seen it, and if they haven't seen it, I would highly recommend that they visit it -- one of the most spectacular areas in this province. There's a river that flows through just beautiful valleys and empties adjacent to glaciers in Alaska. It has created a whole tourism opportunity in commercial back-country recreation in that part of the world. The opposition says that they would scar that park by "mining the hell out of it." That's what the Energy critic for the opposition had to say.
[4:30]
As I said, what we are seeing here in British Columbia is an opposition that does not believe that environmental values, economic prosperity and economic development go hand in
[ Page 13919 ]
hand. We are seeing a government that has demonstrated that that does occur: CORE, the land use planning processes that I alluded to earlier on, and the parks and economic growth, which I think is evidenced by statements not made by myself -- obviously I have a personal interest in talking about the accomplishments of this government -- but by third parties. We have the highest credit rating in Canada financially and the highest environmental rating, an A minus, higher than any other province in Canada.
I want to say a couple of other things before I sit down and take my spot. Why is this government doing this? This government is doing this because we believe that we have an obligation to future generations to ensure that they inherit an environment that is at least as safe, clean, bountiful and rich as the one we were fortunate enough as a society to inherit. That means making some very tough decisions. That means bringing forward a forest practices code that changes the way we manage our forests. It's backed up by tough enforcement and heavy penalties for engaging in the kinds of forest practices that we have engaged in in the past.
That means making some tough decisions about greenhouse gases and emissions from automobiles. One of the most unnerving events of the last few years, in my mind -- I was talking about this earlier on today -- was the disappearance of 1.5 million salmon from the Fraser River system. They disappeared in part because of overfishing; they also disappeared in part because the water temperature in the Fraser River went up by a fraction of a degree. The fish got confused and went back.
Greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and petroleum products, trapped by the ozone layer, create a greenhouse effect on Earth that causes the temperature on Earth to rise. We saw the catastrophic economic impact and environment impact that can happen when a minor change in the water temperature of the river occurred. The fish didn't make it up the Fraser River system. The next two years are forecasted to be the worst two years in history in terms of returning salmon.
I guess we can have debates in this House, as we did with the Reform Party, on the viability of carbon taxes or of reducing dependency on petroleum products. The Minister of Environment from Alberta said to me that Alberta, which contributes 27 percent -- if I am not mistaken -- of the greenhouse gas emissions problem, could not deal with that because they would lose petroleum customers in Oklahoma if they ceased doing some of their oil production.
Rhetorically, at the time, I said that she had her head stuck in the tar sands; it's certainly a comment I don't regret to this day. We have to think about the global impact of human behaviour. I said to her during the course of that meeting, and I say again that: I don't ever want to see the day when I take my son to a river in British Columbia and tell him: "Son, there were once fish in this river, and I could have done something to make sure that they were still here today."
We don't believe that, as a government. We believe in making some of tough decisions which have to be made to ensure that future generations have access to the same resources, the same bounty, that we as a generation have. Sustainable forestry, CORE, the Forest Practices Code, forest renewal, sustainable fisheries, riparian zones, watershed restoration programs, habitat conservation and a water protection act are all initiatives that we have brought forward as a government. Others include clean air, clean air amendment act, vapour pressure regulations, clean diesel, encouragement of Ballard bus technology, protecting representative ecosystems to protect wildlife and 99 new parks created by this administration in the last year -- 99 new parks to protect the grizzly bear, to protect the integrity of endangered species in B.C. and to ensure that areas like the Carmanah, the Kitlope and the Khutzeymateen are protected for future generations.
It always troubles me, when I talk about parks, to hear the opposition say to me: "Where's the money coming from to protect these green spaces for future generations?" And I suppose someone once said that about Stanley Park, but I'm wondering who would say that about Stanley Park today. So we're going to protect green spaces in British Columbia. Hon. Chair, as you know only too well, we did this in the Gowlland Range -- a fabulous decision for you and for me. Tod Inlet, Juan de Fuca Marine Trail and Panama Hill will forever give us a sense of pride and a recognition of the accomplishments of what we've been able to do as a team here on south Vancouver Island.
I've been impressed with the degree to which my colleagues in the lower mainland built upon that success on southern Vancouver Island. They've been coming to me and saying that we need to do the same in the lower mainland. We started out with Indian Arm. We won't finish until our work is done. I want all the members to know today that we will triple -- almost quadruple -- the amount of green space in the lower mainland for future generations to enjoy.
I should go to my notes now.
T. Perry: No, you're doing great --
L. Fox: And utter some Sihota-isms.
Hon. M. Sihota: And utter some Sihota-isms, that's right.
I want to say a few things on fisheries. I forgot to mention, of course, the need for us to deal with urban riparian zones. I don't know if anybody in this room has ever looked at a map of the city of Vancouver in the 1890s and compared it to a map of the city of Vancouver today. The one thing that jumps out at you is the number of streams that used to exist within the boundaries of the city of Vancouver. They're gone now, black topped -- condominiums, houses and development. They used to be important spawning grounds for fish.
We're seeing more and more development up the Fraser River. Fifty percent of the salmon that come up the Fraser River system spawn in urban streams. There's a challenge now, to municipalities, to bring forward legislative instruments that replicate what we've done in terms of the riparian zones, to establish urban riparian zones and to ensure that streams in urban areas -- the coast of Vancouver Island and the lower mainland -- are protected. I would hope that we see some developments in that regard.
I want to say just a few things about multiculturalism, which is the other component of my portfolio. If you were to walk down the streets of Victoria or Vancouver and ask people whether or not they think it is wise for government to make expenditures with regard to multiculturalism, I think the majority of people will tell you no, it's not. I do believe that's why the opposition parties take issue with the increases in our budget this year for multiculturalism.
[ Page 13920 ]
Every day in my work as a minister I talk to people who want to invest in British Columbia, people from Hong Kong, India and Korea who are looking at investing in Los Angeles or Vancouver. I say, "Look, you can invest in Vancouver," and I tell them all about the economic opportunities and the environmental amenities. I say: "Your children can be taught Mandarin in the schools of Vancouver, you can buy your food, your spices and your clothes in Chinatown, you can pick up newspapers that talk of domestic and international news in a language that you are familiar with and you can attend the religious institute of your religious background -- any one you want -- because they all exist in the city of Vancouver." You can see the shift in body language. You can see that these are attributes that we offer as a province which are not offered in Los Angeles, where they don't believe in a multicultural policy, but in some sort of homogeneous policy where you come out looking like one big American.
I know that investment decisions are made because of the fact that we can showcase to prospective investors the benefits of a multicultural policy here in British Columbia. That's why in this province we have been able to weather the recession that the rest of the country experienced for the last couple of years. That's why we've maintained our status as the number one economy in Canada; it's because we offer these kinds of programs that encourage Asian investment in British Columbia. I don't think anybody could deny that that investment has helped us to overcome or to avoid the recession of the rest of the country.
I just don't think people think of multiculturalism in economic terms. They think of it in social terms, not economic terms. I have never met a chamber of commerce crowd that has taken issue with multiculturalism after I've laid it out in the fashion I just laid it out to members in this chamber. There are also good social and cultural reasons to encourage a policy of multiculturalism. Children naturally want to know about their heritage, their parents' background and the origins of their grandfathers and grandmothers. I think it's only natural to encourage people to learn of the culture that forms the basis of their family background, be it Ukrainian or East Indian. It's important that we try to create a society where people can learn to speak Ukrainian or learn to speak Punjabi. That's why I'm proud of the fact that as an administration we've made a conscious decision to establish Punjabi, Mandarin and Japanese as part of the curriculum starting in grade 5 in September 1996.
It's important that children know about their culture. I think all hon. members know that I don't speak to my kids in English. I never have, but I don't know if I'll be able to maintain that forever. I have to say that I'm very proud of the fact that our administration has made sure that these languages are taught in school so that children and future generations do not forget where they came from, that we maintain some kind of linkage, that we celebrate our diversity and that we learn from the positive attributes of our religious backgrounds and our value systems that our parents brought to this country.
I purposely said a few minutes ago that that ought to be encouraged whether you're Ukrainian or Punjabi, because I think the other failure of multiculturalism is that people see it, unfortunately, as a policy that somehow is aimed at visible minorities and people of colour. It's not; it says to people that whether you're from Poland, Germany, Russia, Taiwan, the Philippines or India, you're welcome here. There's a value to us that as a people we share our cultures with one another, but we don't forget where we came from. At times I regret the assumption that somehow multiculturalism is something that caters to visible minorities. That's not the case. I have to say that inasmuch as the majority of the population will question expenditures on multiculturalism, if they think it through and listen to the arguments that I've made, they will think differently.
[4:45]
Our job as political leaders in this province is to stand up every once in a while and speak to the majority view and explain why that should change. That takes political courage. It's very easy to simply lip the same things that the majority says; it's very easy to do what the opposition does. It takes some conviction to do what we're trying to do as a government. I purposely put that in partisan terms, because I think that's what is happening in B.C. today. There are fundamental differences between the environmental, economic and cultural vision that we bring to this province and the vision the opposition brings. At the end of the day, I guess politics is all about vision and values. The values that I've spoken to -- a passion for the environment, sustained economic development and cultural diversity -- are at the core of the political movement that I represent. It stands in stark contrast to the "I'm all right, Jack," free enterprise attitude I often see articulated by members of the opposition.
I've had the good fortune and privilege to represent this government in cabinet for the last three and a half years. It's been a real privilege, and it's been a real learning experience for me, if I can be honest about it. But at the same time, it's allowed me to see that there's still some hope that ordinary people can make an impact on public policy and that the kinds of values which have always been part of my psychology can be translated into public policy. They will undoubtedly form the basis of political debate as we move into an election campaign, which will inevitably happen before the next set of estimates from the Ministry of Environment.
I want to conclude by just saying one thing: since these may be the last estimates before the next election on my part, I want to thank the employees of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks including the employees responsible for multiculturalism, human rights and immigration for their commitment and work in furthering these policies. It's certainly been a joy for me to work with staff, have their support, and to share their visions and try to implement them in terms of public policy. I'm sure they will be here in appropriate numbers as we engage in this debate. Thank you, hon. Chair, and I trust that was riveting enough for the opposition.
W. Hurd: I have to confess that the minister's opening address rarely disappoints us. This one didn't, either. I'm glad he talked about ordinary British Columbians, because I think the minister is correct that during the course of the coming year, as we head into the next election, the debate will be very much with ordinary British Columbians -- the kind of people who are affected by government policy and who are striving in communities throughout British Columbia to sustain their local economies and meet the regulations and standards that come out of Victoria.
As we kick off this set of estimates, I think it's important to remind ourselves about the kind of economy we still have in the province of British Columbia. When you look at
[ Page 13921 ]
the breakdown of the economy -- whether it be the mining sector, grazing tenures, the emerging industry of back-country recreation or the environmental initiatives that are underway in the form of private hatcheries, etc. -- the one common denominator is secure access to Crown land. The one thing that people are looking for is some sort of security.
As I listened carefully to the minister's remarks, I detected an us-and-them mentality -- that the government has a mandate because individual or ordinary British Columbians don't have the commitment to environmental protection that his government has. I want to tell the minister that during my travels through the province, particularly in rural parts, I did not meet a single British Columbian who did not recognize the beauty of the province and the need to protect it, and who didn't have a number of ideas about how the environment can be enhanced and protected in local communities.
As I reflect on the last four years of issues concerning Environment, Lands and Parks -- particularly on the Lands side -- I really see a sense of frustration and insecurity in people with respect to their access to the land base and their ability to earn a living and protect the environment at the same time. I only wish that during the last year the minister would have resolved to get out of the ivory tower in Victoria here, where the regulations are created, and really talk to individual ranchers, for example, and to those people who are trying to develop private fish hatchery projects. Those are individual British Columbians who, I've found, have a wealth of knowledge and wonderful ideas about how to enhance and protect the environment in their local communities.
I am concerned that what has been missing in the course of debate over the last four years are incentives to individual British Columbians and communities to provide the kinds of environmental protection and initiatives that we all seek. We certainly saw that during the debate on the Forest Practices Code, where the emphasis, as the minister has indicated, was on tough enforcement and penalties. There were no incentives for licensees to go beyond the level required by legislative mandate.
We see that evidenced on the Lands side, where there are some wonderful opportunities out there for back-country recreation ventures, which would enhance the tourism potential of the province, the local environment and the economic base. Yet we often find that those initiatives are stalled in what people perceive to be bureaucratic gridlock between overlapping ministry initiatives. The minister, I know, will disagree with the comments I'm making -- I mean, he's on that side of the House, and we're on this side -- but I can tell him without equivocation that the individual British Columbians I've talked to are very concerned about their ability to continue to do what they've always done in their communities: earn a living and come forward with environmental initiatives to protect the environment.
Nowhere, I believe, was that more evident than in the CORE process, to which the minister alluded when he started his remarks. The minister suggested that somehow that process worked. Well, I really wonder how the minister can say that, because at the end of the day, after the reports were presented in the Kootenays and in the Cariboo and on the North Island, a lot of fine-tuning went on -- not fine-tuning, but major revisions -- involving negotiators for the government -- including, I might add, the deputy minister from the Premier's Office and other deputies from other ministries. There was almost a shuttle service back and forth between the communities and the regions affected. There was continued effort to try and nail down a land use plan.
Those kinds of negotiations were almost a polar opposite of what happened during the CORE round-table meetings. I think people became very concerned and frustrated by the process, to the point where people in those communities have said that never again would they participate in a process like that. They felt strongly that the interest groups had come to the table with entrenched positions and that there had been an initiative to protect interests rather than reach consensus. At the end of the day, as the minister knows, the commissioner, Stephen Owen, was required to fill in large gaps in the land management plan, which met with great resistance in the communities involved.
One of the things that the opposition has consistently tried to talk about during the last three years is the importance of communities, the importance of dealing them into the process, of allowing them to come forward with initiatives that the government in Victoria supports. I'm sure we'll get into it during the course of this debate.
It's my understanding that we'll be starting on the Lands and Parks side. My colleague the hon. member for Matsqui is the Environment critic, and he will be participating in the next few days in this set of estimates.
I really sense, as I've gone around the province, that British Columbians, despite the opening remarks and the rhetoric of the minister, are very concerned about the direction that this ministry is taking. They're very concerned about the impact that it's having on the lives of individual British Columbians. The minister suggests that the initiatives of his ministry have somehow secured the investment climate in the province. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth -- particularly on the back-country recreation side, where there are a number of initiatives stalled out because of lack of agreement. It may be the case of a lack of agreement from bands in the province or it may be a requirement for further studies to be presented.
The avalanche of paperwork that is overtaking the ministries in the field is another alarming aspect of the last two or three years. It's one thing to establish regulations. I know the minister believes that by holding another press conference and releasing another set of standards that the environment is in some way protected.
Then there is the allocation and the initiation side. The ministries involved are under stress. I think it's fair to say that the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment are grappling with major change. The Ministry of Forests, for example, is the largest single holder of cutting rights in the province. It does more planning than any other ministry with respect to stream-side management and environment issues. Clearly, when it comes to meeting the minister's tough, rigid guidelines, the Ministry of Forests will have a larger problem than MacMillan Bloedel because of the responsibilities they have to meet the planning processes.
I'm sure the minister and I will have a chance to talk about the difficulties being experienced with respect to the need for approval of projects by first nations. There is now, I understand, a section within each ministry in which at times there is a lack of communication. For example, an applicant trying to put forward a proposal on Crown land in the back-
[ Page 13922 ]
country wilderness area will be required to go through a stream within the Ministry of Environment, a stream within the Ministry of Forests and perhaps a separate stream of paper for Aboriginal Affairs. The minister has to appreciate the impact that this is having on communities and on individuals, on people who have excellent ideas for enhancing their economies in their communities. I know that during the course of the next year, as we head into an election, the minister is determined to run on the government's environmental record....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I'm sure the government will do that.
Again, hon. Chair, the need that he has as a minister will be to convince individual British Columbians that his initiative has protected the environment at the same time that it has protected their livelihoods, their lifestyles and their communities. And that's a formidable challenge.
I can tell the minister -- from having travelled in rural British Columbia, making it a point to listen instead of dictate, as is the role of the opposition -- that he's got a formidable challenge on his hands. Those ordinary British Columbians to which he refers are not convinced that these initiatives represent a great deal more than additional bureaucracy and additional regulation, without the ability on the part of the ministry and the government to follow through on them. So I certainly welcome debate in this set of estimates, particularly with respect to the Lands and Parks side of the ministry, which is the one I have jurisdiction over as the critic.
I want to start the debate by just asking the minister where we are in the province with respect to applications for back-country recreation proposals. How many are in the stream? Does he anticipate that during the course of the current fiscal year an effort will be made by his ministry to identify the logjams, the overlaps and the duplication? I'm aware, for example, of excellent initiatives that have been eight years in the planning stage and show no signs of resolution as another impediment is created.
[5:00]
Again, getting back to my original remarks when I talked about the importance of the economy, I know the minister will agree that back-country recreation -- wilderness tourism -- represents one of the greatest untapped potentials for economic growth and environmental protection in the province. I wonder if he could elaborate on where we are in terms of the number of applications. Is he completely satisfied that his ministry is dealing with those applications in a timely and direct manner? And if not, what initiatives can we expect in the current fiscal year to break the logjam?
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand at this time and make some opening comments with respect to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. First let me say that in my travels across British Columbia, I haven't met many British Columbians who like to be referred to as ordinary. In fact, many British Columbians have expressed the point: "We do not believe that we are ordinary. We may be rank-and-file British Columbians, but we're certainly not ordinary." In fact, I would concur with that analogy.
During these estimates, we in the B.C. Reform Party will be attempting to address a number of major concerns that we have. The first major concern that we have is the paper load on small business, particularly on guides and outfitters. I recently met with a guide and outfitter who showed me a number of applications that he had to file for permits in order to operate his operation. It had significantly increased over the course of the last three and a half years. In fact, he showed me the ones that he had to fill out in 1991 and the ones that he had to fill out in the spring of 1995. That is becoming a very large concern for that particular industry -- no question.
Throughout these estimates we will try to point out the concern that many residents have in attempting to acquire their lease lots, whether they're agricultural lease agreements or recreational lease agreements. As for the interim measures act, and the interpretation this government has placed on the McEachern decision with respect to the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case. We believe very strongly that the government -- and I really hate to use this word referring to the government, but perhaps it is appropriate -- has been very liberal in its interpretation of that case. In fact, we have sought legal advice that gives us other advice with respect to what the precedents of that decision are.
In rural British Columbia, we find that a number of issues around the environment are very large concerns. For instance, we see sawmills having to do away with their beehive burners. At the same time, we see a number of them that have taken some initiative. Prince George, I think, is a good example -- the Canfor-Sinclar mills proposal to put forth a medium-density-waferboard or particle-board initiative, as well as a cogeneration initiative. But the bureaucracy within the system is holding up that initiative, which would see us do away with beehive burners in the bulk of the Prince George and Nechako region.
The other concern we have is a mindset, not only of this government but of bureaucracy as a whole, that we seem to have to operate under the premise that we must take punitive action rather than design a program which encourages British Columbians, through some rewarding mechanism, to treat the environment fairly. There is no question that we need to have those punitive actions available to us, because there are those who would not respect the environment. Certainly we have to be able to punish those who do not respect it. But there is an old saying that you catch more bees with honey than you do with anything else. It seems to me that we have to redirect our energies into trying to come with a system that rewards British Columbians for going beyond what we perceive as reasonable limits with the environment. That is something I would like to see done. We will address those issues over the course of the debate.
Most definitely, the issues that are affecting me in my riding are around a larger bureaucracy, more paperwork, difficulties in achieving approvals and difficulties in acquiring agricultural and recreational lease lots. All that is caused by the interim measures agreements that have been signed with aboriginal people in respect of regions. With those few comments, I look forward to the debate and the rest of the estimates.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a few comments with regard to the speakers for both parties. Then I am going to answer the questions from the member of the Liberal Party so that we can start the debate in more traditional fashion.
I just want to say a few things. The third-largest cause of death for young people in North America is poor air quality
[ Page 13923 ]
-- a shocking figure. I think the member from the Reform Party should hear this. That's what a recent study shows. Beehive burners emit smoke into resource communities like the one I grew up in and many of the ones that the hon. member represents, such as Vanderhoof -- carcinogens in the air. I said a few minutes ago that environmental policy and economic development go hand in hand. Environmental policy, for good health reasons, banned beehive burners in British Columbia. As a result, we saw the spawning of new industries: medium-density fibreboard plants and cogeneration plants approved in Williams Lake and Quesnel. I believe one is before us now for consideration in Prince George.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Good. In fact, they just got their application in.
What I'm saying is that government brings forward good environmental policy banning beehive burners. I know that they were part of our lifestyle; I know we took them all for granted; I know we all grieve that stuff. I remember as a four- or five-year-old going to the Sikh temple up in Mesachie Lake outside of Lake Cowichan, and the temple used to be right next to the beehive burner. As kids we used to run back and forth between the beehive burner and the temple, and check out what was happening in the beehive burner. We took it all for granted. Now we realize that it's the third-largest cause of death for young people. So we brought forward environmental regulations to protect the health of British Columbians and to create new economic development opportunities in MDFs and co-gen. The hon. member is right that there needs to be some approvals here in terms of getting those up and running. I understand that pressure, but please understand why we're doing this.
I agree that guide-outfitting is a wonderful industry, a tremendous industry. Both hon. members opposite said that commercial back-country opportunities in British Columbia are really a hidden economic advantage. I released a study about two weeks ago saying that the parks we've created in British Columbia now generate more direct jobs than coal mining or the newsprint industry: 5,300 direct jobs and 9,300 indirect jobs; $400 million in economic activity created by parks in British Columbia, according to the first-ever economic analysis of the economic impact of parks in B.C.
The member of the Liberal Party sort of bemoans these proactive, sensible environmental policies and wonders what may happen to our economy -- typical Social Credit-type thinking. As I hear him speak, I wonder: if things are so bad, why are they so good? Why is it that we have the highest credit rating in the country and the highest environmental rating in the country, an A minus? Show me another government in North America, hon. member, which can point to that fact.
The applications with regard to commercial back country are being processed as we speak. The process was established in January. Contrary to the views of the hon. member, the government announced a back-country policy with support from all stakeholders. After five years of trying to get people together, we did it and had organizations like the tourism industry association support the policy that we brought forward. If applications are not being processed at a pace which gives people the opportunity to deal with these issues, then clearly we'll take a look at that. I have to say that there's one application, not a multitude of applications. When straightforward applications are in, we move as quickly as we can.
The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:22 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was just finishing my answer. The only other point I would make to the hon. member is that given his concern about delays in applications being processed on commercial back-country ventures, I have to wonder out loud how long those delays would be if we were to make significant cuts to the civil service along the lines that the Liberal Party has been suggesting.
W. Hurd: As the minister is aware, most of the applications involve an application for tenure. I think it's important in this set of estimates for us to get the minister on record about what he feels is an adequate tenure for the average back-country recreation venture. At the end of the day, in many cases these are economic projects that have to be financed. The tenure arrangement that the Crown makes with the applicant is critically important in the type of financing that can be arranged. I wonder if the minister could tell us what he believes is an adequate tenure to secure that type of clean, environmentally friendly investment in the province -- ten years, 15 years or 30 years? That would be helpful, I think, before we go on.
Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the hon. member's question, I don't think it's possible to say five, ten, 15, 20 or 30 years, because it depends on the nature of the enterprise. For example, if you're looking at a major capital investment in the case of a ski hill, the return and the tenure have to be looked at in a totally different way than if you're looking at an application to have a skidoo operation in the back country with little capital overhead but a lot of sightseeing applications. It would vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and so it should.
Second, you don't want to have a tenure that makes it impossible for someone to secure a reasonable rate of return on their investment. You want them to be able to get a return. You also want to be able to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into account. For example, using a skidoo application again, the impact it will have on wildlife in the province must be taken into account. In addition to that, you will want to take a look at competing claims when looking at tenure. For example, skidoo operations versus heliskiing operations, and the overlap between the two, have certainly been areas of concern.
To deal with this issue we have established a stakeholders' group that is meeting with representatives of industries to iron out these wrinkles. It's an appropriate question, but I don't think it is appropriate to say the answer is 20 years. I just don't think it works that way, nor should it. We'll take a look at the industries in a broad way, then look at the specifics of a particular application.
If I may, I think one area that has been an interesting one is the ski industry, and I think we have a very successful alpine commercial ski policy in British Columbia, which has allowed that industry to develop in a way it hasn't all through North America. We haven't had that development because we've had blanket rules. We've had that development around the province because we've taken a look at the stresses and challenges of every different economic operation and then tried to craft something that makes sense for it.
[ Page 13924 ]
W. Hurd: I think the tenure debate is an important one, however. We're not dealing with just the nature of the tenure, the specific number of years; we're also dealing with the potential alienation of that licence for other uses and other purposes. I know the minister will be aware that there has been an incident in the province where a licensee has not been able to access a tenure arrangement, based on changes the Crown has undertaken. I wonder whether there's any commitment from the ministry to look at the tenure arrangements in order to provide some security for the applicant, given the fact that there needs to be, in many cases, millions of dollars borrowed on the security of that licence.
As the critic, I can tell the minister I've had a number of representations from groups like guide-outfitters and others who feel that as a result of not being able to access the tenure -- because of a change of policy by the ministry -- they've in essence been alienated from what some would argue is private property in the province of British Columbia. I know it will be tested in the courts in the years ahead -- whether a tenure arrangement does in fact represent property on the part of the applicant.
I wonder if the minister could just amplify on whether he is concerned about the implications of tenure holders not being able to access their land because of bureaucratic delays that occur, or perhaps because of a change in resource allocation. I think compensation issues arise here, and think they're really important impediments to deal with if we're ever going to have this back-country recreation industry realize its potential in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: I've had the same thoughts over time. To be honest with the hon. member, I think we've made substantial progress in the last year with regard to these kinds of issues. I was thinking while I was listening to the hon. member that last year during estimates, if you had raised these concerns, I would certainly have said yes, they're legitimate and we're working on them. My sense of it is that we've made far more progress than the hon. member realizes in that regard, and with all respect, perhaps some of his research may be somewhat dated. If he has a specific example, perhaps he could cite it, and I'd be happy to speak to it. My sense of it in meeting with the stakeholders is that we've made a lot of progress on this front.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the specific question I could ask, then, relates to the grizzly bear in the Kitlope area, which I know was the subject of potential litigation. In fact, I'm not sure whether it is under litigation or not. An issue has come to my attention where a guide-outfitter has in fact lost a substantial amount of money as a result of not being able to access a tenure in that particular region. This was an incident where the operator had advertised internationally and had actually booked tours to the region, only to be told by the ministry that the resource allocation -- in this case, black bear and grizzly bear -- had changed. In fact, his allocation under the licence had been significantly reduced.
I think it's a specific example that I raise, but I know there are other examples -- particularly in the guide-outfitting sector, but in others -- where there just isn't any security anymore in terms of the business plan that has been presented and approved by the bank. I think it's really a critical question, because it speaks to the issues that I raised during my opening remarks, where there is a concern on the part of the public that as a result of these rules, there is more insecurity out there. There is greater insecurity with respect to access to tenure. I wonder if the minister could specifically comment on the Kitlope situation and the allocations that have so concerned the guide-outfitting industry in the province.
[5:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, on that issue it's not a commercial back-country issue; rather, it's an issue that deals with conservation and the availability of grizzly bear or black bear in the area, and determinations which were made by government on that issue were related to conservation. Certainly, I don't think the hon. member can fairly hold that up as an example of a commercial back-country policy, because the issues were conservation-oriented.
He should also know that I think the guide-outfitters would be the first people to come and tell you they believe that the underlying basis of all these policies has to be conservation of the resource. In fact, guide-outfitters rely on conservation principles in order to maintain the integrity of their business. They have perhaps the greatest vested interest in showing that there is conservation.
I should also let the hon. member know that I've talked to the Guide-Outfitters' Association of B.C. about these cases, both specifically and generally. Finally, I should let the hon. member know that there are negotiations underway with regard to the guide-outfitter involved in that case, which I think speaks for itself in terms of our willingness to sit down with an individual and work out a matter.
W. Hurd: Returning to the back-country issue, can the minister tell us whether his ministry liaises with lending institutions, banks and others that provide financing for these types of ventures, or is that totally within the purview of the Ministry of Tourism? Clearly concern is being expressed by some lending institutions with respect to capital financing for these types of ventures, and insecurity with respect to access is often cited as a reason why that particular sector of the economy has some concerns.
So I wonder if the ministry is spending any time trying to calm the concerns of the lending institutions trying to work with the financing agencies, both nationally and internationally, to convince them that investing in such a venture in British Columbia represents security for their investment?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad the hon. member has brought to the floor of this chamber the concerns of the banking industry. I expect him to do that, given who he represents. But more importantly, I might also say to the hon. member: yes, we have. We do meet with representatives of the financial industry. We do have a stakeholders' organization and discussions with the finance industry. If the hon. member is in a position to give me a specific situation where financing has been rejected because of the application of this policy, I'd be happy to speak to it.
W. Hurd: Well, perhaps the minister can just clarify something for me. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Forests has responsibility for an inventory of the recreation resource of the province on the non park land in British Columbia. They have the responsibility to identify the potential on the 85 percent of the land base that's outside the
[ Page 13925 ]
jurisdiction of the ministry. To me, this speaks volumes about the overlap and duplication that we alluded to earlier. I wonder whether the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has ever entertained the possibility of repatriating this type of initiative or getting more involved in the recreation resource inventory, because I understand that it is behind in terms of its needs.
Could the minister tell us whether there's any problem with the ongoing recreation resource inventory in his ministry's approval of tenure arrangements under the back-country policy? Does he have access to the data that he needs? Is there any problem accessing it from the Ministry of Forests? I wonder if he could elaborate on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the answer to the question is yes -- in the sense that we've had discussions about where that area of policy development should be situate.
Second, in my view it does make sense to keep it where it is, given some of the legislative requirements of the Ministry of Forests around recreation. I remind the hon. member that in the land use planning process Mr. Owen engaged in, he recommended recreation zones within the non-park designation areas.
W. Hurd: I'm just trying to follow the trail of the applicant here, who might come forward with an initiative for a back-country proposal on Crown land. I assume there would be a requirement for him to visit the Ministry of Forests first with respect to accessing the resource inventory, the biodiversity guidelines and the entire requirement under the Ministry of Forests before he ever came to the Ministry of Environment to secure the necessary approvals for wildlife management plans, etc. One assumes that he would then have to deal in some way with the local aboriginal band to further the application.
It seems to me that that represents a tremendous workload on the part of the applicant. I'm sure that the banking industry is, as the minister knows, not in the habit of loaning money where any risk is involved and that speaks to the entire ability to capitalize this emerging new industry of back-country recreation. I wonder whether the minister is concerned about the number of disparate ministries that these applicants have to deal with and the sheer volume of the studies and paperwork that they are required to produce. Clearly there comes a point where, if there is an inordinate delay, the financing just disappears and the confidence erodes.
I guess the concern that I am trying to raise during these estimates is that if we don't make a real effort to streamline these types of applications to improve the flow, we are going to lose investment and that industry, which, as the minister has alluded, is a clean industry and has tremendous potential in the province to add hundreds of millions to our tourism base. So is he acting as an advocate -- as the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks -- to streamline the approval process? He's said that he is, yet we continue.... He acknowledges that we have this duplication between three separate ministries, which I believe is causing a significant problem in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: The points I want to make in response to his question are as follows.
First, you are mistaken if you believe the applicant has to shop his way through two, three, four or whatever ministries. There is one application, one window, and that window is Crown Lands. That is the way it works; it is not for the applicants to shop around.
Second, when it is received by the ministry it goes through a two-stage evaluation process. In the first stage, we take a preliminary look at it -- just whether on a prima facie basis it works or not. If it doesn't, we tell the applicant. In the second stage, if it has merit, we carry it through the system, not the applicant. That is because we are more familiar with the system.
Third, there is a time period that we are working on with the industry so that we can say with certainty that these things will be back within a certain time period -- 90 days, 120 days, whatever the case may be.
Fourth -- and I think this is also where the hon. member is somewhat mistaken -- this is a policy which the industry now agrees with, and they have come on board.
Finally, if the hon. member has a specific example where someone has had to shop around in the way that he discusses, he should cite it. I would rather deal with reality than not.
W. Hurd: I find it interesting that the minister suggested that when an applicant comes forward, the ministry, in fact, ramrods the application. I know the ministry doesn't initiate the studies that are required, and I know the ministry doesn't initiate the required consultation with bands, which is mandated by the aboriginal affairs section of his ministry and the Ministry of Forests. I would certainly welcome a clarification of exactly what he means. I am aware of applicants having to meet a series of guidelines that the ministry sets down which could involve anything from wildlife management studies to compliance -- for example, under the Forest Practices Code. Is the minister assuring the committee during this set of estimates that from here on in, when an applicant comes forward with a proposal that may require a wildlife management plan, for example, the ministry would in fact undertake that? Is that what I'm hearing?
Hon. M. Sihota: What you're hearing is that there is one window for application. The second thing you're hearing is that in that kind of example, we would go back to the applicant and say: "Look, we need more information on this side of it before your application would be processed." So we would identify the glitch, and then they would have to solve it, as is normally the case.
Third, I ask the hon. member this, because this is the value of estimates to both the opposition and ministers. Give me an example of where you see someone having this problem. Give me a real-life example, and I think that would help us deal with that element of concern.
W. Hurd: I'm just trying to establish the framework in general terms, because I can anticipate that the opposition will be receiving questions about this -- I know we do, and have done. Maybe I can ask the minister what support is available to applicants with respect to the requirement for further information. Would they be required to hire their own experts? Would they be required to go out and bring an independent analysis to the issue? Does the ministry have guidelines they establish with respect to consultants who may be providing expertise on fish and wildlife issues to an applicant? I just wonder if the minister could advise us whether there are
[ Page 13926 ]
standards the ministry pursues that the applicant is aware of going in. Or is there any concern here on seeing changes once the information is forwarded from the applicant? For example, it may not comply with the Forest Practices Code guidelines. Is he concerned at all that there's sometimes a flow of paper back and forth rather than just one initial report that's filed and accepted by the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I don't have that concern. I think we have made a lot of progress in the course of the last year. One of the reasons why we made progress is that applicants now have access to a policy -- which I'd be happy to share with the hon. member -- which answers many of those questions that he lays out. In some cases where an application is rejected or a study is needed, we will endeavour to apply our knowledge as a ministry to make the work as minimal as possible for the applicant. Occasionally the applicant himself or herself will have to go out and get some further studies done, but we try to keep those kinds of situations to a minimum.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us how many tenures the ministry expects to sign this year under the back-country recreation policy?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't answer that question; I don't have that information here. It's hard to forecast that, because we have to take a look at the numbers that are coming in. You have to remember that there are already a number of pre-existing ones. How you add it up, I don't know. You spoke earlier about Crown leases and so on. Do you count those into the system or not? There would be a lot of questions there, and I don't think any number would be particularly helpful. Two things would be helpful: if we did our best to help people when they came through the single-window system, and, secondly, if the hon. member gave me a specific example so we could speak to it.
I just want to say to the hon. member that I understand his concern. These are not partisan concerns; they're legitimate concerns, and we have attended to these very much. That's why the industry is now supportive of the commercial back-country policy. I get the sense that perhaps the hon. member may be dealing with dated information or impressions that are not founded on fact.
[5:45]
The Chair: Hon. minister, we have two motions to put at this time. One is a resolution on the Ministry of Education estimates, and the other on progress on the Ministry of Environment estimates. We take it that the minister moves such a motion.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the committee rise and report resolution with regard to the estimates of the Ministry of Education; secondly, that the committee rise and report substantial progress with regard to the Ministry of Environment, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]