[ Page 5987 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

T. Stevenson: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce. . . . Well, actually, I don't have to introduce my predecessor in Vancouver-Burrard of 25 years and the former Speaker, Emery Barnes, who is also the campaign chair for the fundraising committee of the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation. Also with him is Judi Angel, who is the executive director of the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation. I hope all members will make them welcome.

G. Janssen: It's a great pleasure and an honour to introduce to the Legislature the newest member of the motorcycling community in the province. That, of course, is the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the Premier of this province, who can be seen happily walking around the halls today carrying his motorcycle helmet, as he has achieved his class 6 licence. I urge the members to welcome him to our community.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

A CRY FOR CAMBODIA

There are approximately ten million people in Cambodia, a country which has a tradition of Buddhism with significant Hindu influence. For much of the twentieth century, Cambodia was essentially a colony of France. Eventually this influence waned, leaving behind a divided and largely undeveloped nation in the 1960s. A military coup in 1970 resulted in power being seized from the monarch, King Sihanouk. Soon guerrilla forces organized throughout the country, and a Maoist communist group known as the Khmer Rouge successfully attacked government forces. In April 1975 the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, took control of the country. Within one week, the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, a very large city of approximately one million people, was evacuated. Close to one million people were forced, many at gunpoint, to head for the countryside. In fact, patients in hospitals -- many elderly, the sick and small children -- all had to leave on foot for rural areas. Many died during this travel.

Pol Pot and his followers had a vision of a communist world utopia that would sustain itself without money, private property or industry. The stated objective of the Khmer Rouge was to return the country to year zero, and they very nearly succeeded. Many factories and power lines were destroyed in this effort to return to year zero. Judges, lawyers, doctors, dentists, engineers and teachers were either executed outright or were put into forced labour camps under the worst possible conditions, where many eventually died, as well.

The Khmer Rouge killed with conviction. It is now estimated that between 1975 and 1979, two million people were either murdered or died as the result of forced labour and chronic malnourishment. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were forced into the mountains in the north and western parts of the country by December 1979 after intervention by Vietnamese military forces. But the Khmer Rouge have not entirely disappeared.

Even though he has often been reported to have been either captured or killed, the power of Pol Pot continues today. He's still a free man. The power of Pol Pot is evidenced by the tattered shreds of trust between citizens in Cambodia. David Chandler, a noted authority on Cambodia and U.S. professor, has written: "Pol Pot introduced a new level of brutality into government behaviour that remains in Cambodia today."

Earlier this year I spent some time in Cambodia and witnessed firsthand the devastating legacy that decades of civil war and unrestrained violence have left. While I was there, I travelled to various parts of the country, and I visited my cousin Cliff Dick, who was working in the northwestern part of Cambodia known as Pursat province. He and his wife Marlene have been there for about two years, managing a Canadian relief project in one of the poorest parts of what the United Nations says is the sixth-worst country in the world to live in. In contrast, for the last number of years Canada has consistently been rated as the very best country in the entire world to live in. Out of almost 200 countries in the world, Cambodia is virtually dead-last. One year before my visit, an attack by Khmer Rouge guerillas in Pursat left 12 dead, including a woman who was killed with an axe.

The challenge is obvious, and the challenge is enormous. The group that my cousin was with is called Hope International. They are a voluntary agency based in New Westminster, British Columbia. In the past two years this organization, with just a shoestring budget and relying on volunteer help, has installed more than 200 drinking wells in Pursat province. We take water for granted here in British Columbia, and sometimes we complain that we have too much. But in Pursat there is no running water. The only running water is in a river that for many people is about a two-mile walk to get to. To have drinking wells installed in a community was a major advantage, freeing up people's time to spend growing rice or looking after their children.

The first thing you notice is the lack of men. That's because many of them were killed in the 1970s. It has been estimated by some authorities that 65 percent of the adult population are women. This has meant that women are both mothers and workers. It was not uncommon to see a woman holding a baby. . . . In fact, I saw one breast-feeding while she was hoeing in the rice paddy. The women are tremendously strong, but they need help. Everyone has a story to tell. Everyone who still remains can tell you about someone in their family who died during the period of the Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1979.

I'm told that in the Khmer language it used to be traditional to greet people with the expression: "How many children do you have?" By 1970, as things were deteriorating, the question became: "Are you in good health?" During the period of the Khmer Rouge, the question when you encoun-

[ Page 5988 ]

tered your friends was, "Do you have enough food in your commune?" because of the mass starvation that was taking place. After the Khmer Rouge were driven from power, the question that people asked and continue to ask is: "How many of your family are still alive?"

I met a young woman who was working with my cousin's group in Pursat. She doesn't know how old she is, because her parents are dead, and there are no records. Her name is Leak. She is probably in her early twenties. Her sister, about a year younger than herself, was abducted last year by military forces, and she hasn't been able to see her sister. This is what is continuing to happen in Pursat and in Cambodia, and they need our support.

I. Waddell: I'd like to take a couple of minutes to reply to the rather unique speech this morning by the hon. member on a topic we don't normally hear about in this House. Cambodia is a beautiful but tragic country. I too have been in Cambodia. Two years ago I spent Christmas and New Year's at the great temple of Angkor Wat, one of the wonders of the world, in a little town called Siem Reap for a cultural festival, which showed what could have been done, with about seven Asian countries coming and dancing in the great temples. It was magnificent. While I was there I met Prince Ranariddh, who has now fled to Paris, and Hun Sen, who is now the dictator, if you like, of Cambodia.

The member spoke of people he had met who had lost family. Our landlady had lost all her brothers and sisters and her parents. But she had a great smile; she was a great person.

It's a tragic country, as I said -- so beautiful. You go outside of Phnom Penh, and in a field. . . . It would be like a little farm in the Fraser Valley, a nice rolling field. You're there, and the rice paddies are down below you. There's a monument, and the monument is full of skulls. Those are the killing fields. That is where they took people out -- they had a prison there -- and killed them. That's why there's a great hatred in many people there for the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese came in and replaced the Khmer Rouge. What happened then, of course, was that Hun Sen was put in by the Vietnamese, and now he's back in power. You can see why he has some support among the peasantry, the country -- because he rescued some of them from the Khmer Rouge.

[10:15]

The first role is what Canada is doing -- and I give Lloyd Axworthy great credit for this -- and that is clearing land mines, working to clear land mines. I visited a little area where they were clearing mines. It's an agricultural country, yet it's full of land mines. You spoke about the women in the fields. Every day people are blown up there and lose legs and arms by these land mines. So we do work there.

Secondly, we're having an APEC conference here; that is, the Pacific Rim finance ministers -- trade ministers -- are coming here, to Vancouver, in November. This is a regional question. This is a question where the Asian "tigers" -- like the Thais, the Malaysians and some of these people who came, who sent their dancers to this dance festival I was at -- should then send their foreign ministers to talk about Cambodia, and in the regions they should try to solve a problem that needs to be solved.

The United Nations tried -- that's true -- and did good work there. But it's a regional problem, now, for these regional states. Canada, as a Pacific Rim nation, has a role; British Columbia has a role in the sense that we're obviously going to be pretty active at that APEC conference in November.

B. Penner: I appreciate the hon. member's remarks.

While I was in Pursat, I encountered a student from British Columbia who had decided to take a term or two off from university. Matthew is a young man in his early twenties from Salmon Arm, who felt moved to volunteer, to try to help those who are obviously much less fortunate than ourselves. I would think that if the situation in Cambodia stabilizes -- and certainly for other parts of the world that are safer -- British Columbia, given our high rates of youth unemployment, may wish to consider some type of program in the future that encourages our young people, our students, to perhaps dedicate six months or a year of their life to work in a developing country, to participate in a way that helps humankind. It's a very tangible thing, and for Matthew it was a very satisfying experience to work hand in hand with the Khmers, trying to improve their own status.

One of the projects was a water diversion project which, if completed, would be the first successful irrigation project in that entire region and would enable them to grow two crops of rice per year instead of just one. The contrast is shocking when you move a few hundred kilometres to the east into Vietnam, where there is some equipment and where there are irrigation systems. The wealth of the country is obviously much greater, because they are able to produce enough food to live on.

I'll just share one last remark, Mr. Speaker. I also visited some of the killing fields that the hon. member mentioned, and it is very moving. I also went to Tuol Sleng, which was a torture centre, where about 16,000 people died between 1975 and 1979. Only five people are known to have actually survived, escaping when the Vietnamese invaded. Throughout the building are photographs of the people who were executed, because the Khmer Rouge were meticulous recordkeepers. You saw the photographs of all the people as they were about to be killed, and many of them knew it. I was very moved by the faces that I saw.

A song went through my mind, a phrase that stayed with me during my time in Cambodia. It goes something like this:

This is a prayer for the souls of the departed,
Those who have died and left their loved ones broken-hearted,
Young lives over before they ever started.
This is my prayer for the souls of the departed.

MARKET HOUSING: CONSUMERS' RIGHTS
AND DEVELOPERS' OBLIGATIONS

[ Page 5989 ]

Home-ownership is an integral part of North American culture -- at least, the dream of home-ownership is. I think all of us in this country expect that we should be able to buy a home. We know that we'll have to work hard to pay the mortgage and that one day we'll own a home that will contribute to our sense of security in our later years. It seems to me that this is a reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, for thousands of homebuyers in British Columbia, this is a dream which often becomes a nightmare, because they have purchased homes with fundamental problems -- a situation commonly known as the leaky-condo syndrome.

For example, in my constituency of New Westminster there are hundreds of New Westminster residents who have purchased condominiums in recent years. In one building that I'm aware of -- I've met with the residents -- each of the owners in that building faces a $25,000 assessment to fix problems that were created by shoddy construction. Hon. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. People in British Columbia have a right to expect better than that.

The people who buy these homes, these condos, are regular working people. Often they're people who have barely managed to scrape into the housing market in the first place. One couple I met who have by now. . . . They were expecting twins, and they will all be living in a one-bedroom-and-den condo because they can't sell that condo. The reason they can't sell it is because they've got a $25,000 assessment to pay for repairs. Nobody wants to buy it, so a couple who should rightly be able to move on and buy a home are unable to. The reason they are unable to is because of the developer of that project.

There's another woman in that building who is seriously ill with cancer. She cannot afford to get $25,000 to pay that assessment. Nobody will lend it to her because, once again, she's one of these people who scraped together every last penny just to get the minimum payment in order to get into that building. Now she's in a position where no institution will lend her the money.

I want to emphasize that these are not wealthy people. These are often retirees who just want to own a small apartment for their retirement. These are often young people who are first-time homebuyers. This is a home. It's not an appliance, it's not a car, it's not something that can be left aside or returned or exchanged easily.

This is a problem that has reached epidemic proportions in British Columbia and, I think, particularly in Vancouver. There's a recent story in the Business In Vancouver magazine which states that PCL, one of British Columbia's biggest construction companies, is getting into the restoration business by way of "capitalizing on the massive problem of leaky condominiums." That company estimates that there is $10 million in restoration work each year for the next ten years in Vancouver alone.

There's a lawyer in Vancouver who does nothing but condo construction claims. He carries 40 to 50 cases at a time, and he estimates that there are 20 other lawyers in Vancouver doing exactly the same thing. When he was asked what this is doing to people's lives, he's quoted as saying: "Oh man, people call me on a daily basis telling me their lives have been ruined."

What is the industry response? The industry response is that the industry is doing just fine -- let the free market prevail. There are warranties available, they say. The problem is that almost a quarter of new condos have no warranty at all. Of those that do have a warranty, the longest warranty coverage I could find in my research for water penetration coverage was three years. Often it is only one-year coverage, and we know that water leaks take at least a couple of years to show up.

The same lawyer who specializes in condo cases has characterized these warranties as simply being a selling tool. As of less than two years ago, he was unfortunately able to say: "I have never been aware of any case in which they" -- meaning the warranty provider -- "have held there is a major structural defect. The warranty sets out the criteria, and then they never meet the criteria." All too often the warranty has expired before major problems become apparent.

This is the position of too many of my constituents and too many British Columbians. I suspect a lot of these people would feel that in retrospect, they would have done just as well to get a warranty from the three little pigs.

With that, I'll take my seat and hear what my hon. friend on the other side has to say about this issue. Then I'll talk a little bit about where we might go from here in addressing this problem.

R. Coleman: I thank the member across the House for his comments with regard to this serious issue, which I actually canvassed in estimates with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about a month to six weeks ago.

The one thing we have to remember, though, as we deal with this particular issue is that there's a number of people that bear responsibility other than just the builder. The builder has an ultimate responsibility to build the product properly, according to the design that they have. When they build it, they have the responsibility to meet warranty provisions and to fix things that are wrong about the structure. There's no argument there from me, and I don't think there would be any argument from anybody else in this regard. But if you've ever dealt with the design of a particular building -- and if we just deal with one building in sort of theory as we might talk about it -- there's a number of parties involved that have direct responsibility as to how the final product comes out.

The first authority that people deal with when they're dealing with the structure of a building is the municipal planning department of any municipality. The municipalities have a tendency at times to push the marketplace into what we will call "aesthetically pleasing designs" that meet their particular view of a particular look for their municipality. Oftentimes that forces design problems onto the architectural or engineering community that ultimately create these types of problems. I think you'd find that there's very seldom a leak in a condominium with stucco. . . . We should recognize that we're dealing with stucco finishings for the most part. You'll seldom find a leak in the design of a building with stucco finishing that has adequate eaves over top of the building so that water is deflected. We are in a very wet climate, and we have this particular concern.

So municipal planning departments have to step up to the front. The Architectural Institute has to step up to the front, and the engineering people have to step up, as well as the building community and everyone else, and start to design buildings that fit our climate and fit the designs so that they're capable, so this problem doesn't continue in the future.

[10:30]

[ Page 5990 ]

built in our marketplace that are going to bring this problem we have today. We have to stop the bleeding. Once we've stopped the bleeding, we have to go back and address the problem.

The story the member tells about the $25,000 assessment in a condominium for somebody that's just bought a condominium within three to five years of purchase is happening on a regular basis all over the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is a very frustrating, very time-consuming and very expensive process for everyone involved.

Everybody has to come to the forefront. I do know that the Canadian Home Builders Association has worked on it, with their membership as far as their quality of design and looking at the improvement of warranties and what have you, to fix the problem. I do know that different institutes, like the Architectural Institute, are also looking at it, but that really doesn't solve the problem for the poor guy that bought the condo in the first place, like the one the member mentioned.

Those are the people who are very frustrated. It goes back to the days when we put urea-formaldehyde foam into buildings, and then we ended up going and taking it out. There has to be some bearing of responsibility by the people that have designed, the people that have built and the people that have produced this product, so we can come up with the solutions.

I welcome any solutions with regards to this problem that the member may have today, because I know that he, myself and the minister have discussed it -- and have discussed it at length. Any input that we can come up with to solve this serious problem for people in British Columbia would be worthwhile.

G. Bowbrick: More and more people are saying that it's time for government intervention. This is what my constituents are telling me; this is what happens when I meet with the strata council in one of these buildings in New Westminster. One of the ideas that's been floated in recent years is that there should be a mandatory warranty on all new homes. Whether it's run by the government or the private sector, it should be mandatory.

This is something that has existed in Ontario since 1976. Unfortunately, a major homebuilder, upon hearing this, was quoted as saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, how much more blatant does the problem have to become before it's obvious that the situation is broke, to quote that builder?

He maintained that the current voluntary private sector warranties were good enough, and I suggest that that builder, that developer and others should tell that to my constituents. They should tell that to the young family who have no hope in the immediate future of moving out of a one-bedroom-and-den apartment for a family of four. He should tell that to them; it's an outrage.

Perhaps if the industry wants to keep its head in the sand on this, we should look at other possibilities. Perhaps we should look at legislation to pierce the corporate veil, as it's called, to ensure that when developers or builders set up shell companies to develop one project and then fold it and move on to the next project. . . . Maybe there should be legislation to ensure that ripped-off homeowners have a legal trail to follow to sue that developer or homebuilder.

Maybe we should look at that. Maybe we should be looking at mandatory training and standards for construction workers, so that we don't have untrained workers out working at seven or eight bucks an hour putting up those condos -- for which people paid $168,000, on average, in British Columbia this year. Maybe there should be proper apprenticeships.

I don't want unnecessary government intervention any more than the next person. So I suggest the challenge to developers is this: prove to us that intervention isn't necessary, show us that the market can work for consumers, make a proper commitment to uphold your responsibilities as developers and make a commitment to respect the rights of consumers.

I say directly to those builders and developers today: if you do not do this, I offer this warning. This is an issue that is simmering; it will reach the boiling point. Homeowners are becoming desperate, and the fact is that politicians will act in their best interests, not in the best interests of developers -- certainly on my side of things. So I have to say that I hope developers will take note of that, because this will reach the boiling point, and intervention may become necessary.

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE

Throughout the years I took a number of first-aid courses, including first aid and CPR, and seven times in my lifetime I've had the occasion to use that when an individual was in distress as a result of an accident or drowning or whatever the case may have been.

I recently bumped into the executive director of the St. John Ambulance of British Columbia, Lucille Johnstone. She mentioned a couple of things to me, and I started to think to myself as I was talking to her: "You know, I really don't know a whole lot about the St. John Ambulance, but I do know they're the ones that taught me first aid." So I decided to do a little research.

I thought it was important for the House to realize what a great contribution this organization has made to society for over a thousand years. The St. John Ambulance, in actual fact, has its roots back in the Benedictine monks' hospice established in Jerusalem in 600 A.D. Imagine! Today hospice is in vogue in our society. We have places like Canuck Place and what have you. The St. John Ambulance were establishing a hospice in 600 A.D.

At the millennium, for continuous service as volunteers to society, the St. John Ambulance will have served society for a thousand years of continuous service. Worldwide this year, the St. John Ambulance will give 20 million volunteer-hours in service to communities. In British Columbia alone, in the next year they will give us 175,000 volunteer-hours.

The interesting thing about the St. John Ambulance to British Columbia is that it was actually the precursor of the Workers Compensation Board. St. John Ambulance came to British Columbia to provide first aid, advice and safety courses in the logging industry way, way back, long before we thought of creating our own bureaucracy to deal with workers' rights and workers' safety.

Every year this organization can be seen everywhere in this province, and we take it for granted. What we can see is that they'll have a first-aid person wherever crowds will 

[ Page 5991 ]

gather. They will have ground ambulances, called mobile first-aid posts, in association with many events. You'll see them at the Abbotsford International Air Show, at the parade, at the PNE. You'll see them all over the province.

They provide training in home nursing, first aid, CPR. The cadets are also trained in all of those things and go out voluntarily to all of these events. They respond to. . . . They are also trained as part of our own. . . . They're probably part of our disaster management if something happens in our society, because they are actually on the ground -- well over a thousand volunteers, fully trained in case of a disaster for disaster management in first aid.

The interesting thing about the St. John Ambulance is that every one of those services is provided to society free of charge. If you take 175,000 volunteer-hours, that's worth over $3 million to British Columbia in first-aid services at events across this province. If you think of that over a thousand years and maybe a hundred years in British Columbia, think of the dollars this organization has saved our society -- simply because they believe in their motto, which is pro utilitate hominum, for the service of mankind. It's an organization that's there for the service of mankind.

What kind of effect have they had on mankind? I can tell you from my own personal view that there are five people alive today as a result of the training that St. John Ambulance provided to me, because I knew what to do in a situation of crisis. I knew what mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is and what CPR is. When the time came, I had been trained to do it.

They're the ones that did it. If you take British Columbia in the next year, they're going to train something like 75,000 people in CPR or first aid -- 75,000 more people on the ground to protect the members of our society, as a result of the commitment of the St. John Ambulance.

This is an absolutely incredible organization. I don't know why I'm not a member of it. When I started to find out about it, it blew me away. Imagine an organization that makes that kind of contribution to society -- quietly -- and that we take for granted everywhere we go. We see them in our daily lives, yet most British Columbians probably don't know what they do for us.

It is absolutely wonderful to accidentally go look at something, because of meeting somebody and remembering one course you took early in your life, and to find out that what they taught you they've taught millions upon millions of people over a thousand years as a contribution to our society. I'm proud today to bring that to the attention of this House on behalf of the St. John Ambulance.

E. Walsh: I'm pleased to respond to the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on St. John Ambulance. He's quite correct: the order of the St. John Ambulance is one of the oldest, and I believe the oldest, charitable organization in the world, with over a thousand years of international history. It has grown into a worldwide non-profit, non-denominational, multicultural organization that is committed to serving others.

The order was initially focused on the need for care during the Industrial Revolution, and this was in consideration of all those many people, all those injured, that needed help. Much like the Red Cross, this came out of times of war. However, during the course of time, the foundations of the brigade itself -- the St. John Ambulance -- are maintained in times of peace.

The universal motto of St. John, quite rightly, is: "For the Service of Mankind." The official emblem of St. John Ambulance, and the St. John people around the world, is a white cross. The emblem is significant in that the eight points that span off into the four arms were to put the wearers in mind of always bearing in their hearts the cross of Jesus, adorned with the eight virtues that attend it. Prior to the council of the order in England, the meaning of each point was basically religious. But since then, the meanings have been changed. They are: observation, tact, resource, dexterity, explicitness, discrimination, perseverance and sympathy.

Hon. Speaker, by providing the training and the community service that the St. John Ambulance commits itself to, it improves the health, the safety and the quality of life of all Canadians, especially those that we represent here in British Columbia. You'll see qualified St. John people in communities, in workplaces, in schools and at large public events all around the world and all around our province. Membership ages start at six with the badgers, through to the cadets, and on to adult. Countries and climates are diverse, and as such, St. John Ambulance attendants and St. John people must adapt themselves to their local circumstances. They continually strive to fulfil the concept of health for all.

St. John provides and produces textbooks, training aids and course programs that are available to everyone. One of the course programs is CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which the hon. member across spoke of. During the 1960s the Order of St. John was instrumental in promoting the use of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in Canada, along with CPR. Now, this is the most effective way of saving lives, and in addition to this program, St. John offers a full range of safety-oriented first aid for all ages and all walks of life. They include four levels of CPR, six levels of health promotion courses, therapy dogs, food collection, canteen services and backup services for emergency and disaster relief.

In 1910 -- and this is just a little bit closer to my constituency and my home -- first aid was introduced into the mines. That year, 21 employees of the Crow's Nest Coal Co. at Michel, B.C., which is right close to the Alberta-B.C. border, received St. John Ambulance certificates. This training was extended into the logging companies, also.

The Workers Compensation Board, as the hon. member opposite also stated, based in B.C., supported the first-aid training, and in 1920 the board adopted regulations which made it compulsory for all establishments with 15 or more employees to supply first-aid equipment and training. And in 1928 the WCB, which had been conducting its own courses, decided that they would recognize only the instruction by St. John Ambulance.

[10:45]

Today St. John continues to provide health care training and programs for all people in British Columbia. I believe that this is a very important service to the people of our province, and I thank the hon. member across for bringing the attention of the service back to the people of British Columbia.

R. Coleman: I'd like to thank the hon. member on the other side. Even though we didn't plan this as a tag team, we've given a pretty good outline of the St. John Ambulance 

[ Page 5992 ]

in 12 minutes, which I think is pretty remarkable. I would like to close, though, by saying that the real effect of the St. John Ambulance on people's lives -- from my own personal experience, when somebody literally comes back to life because of what they've brought to our society -- is something you can't explain.

I think there's a very good reason that the Minister of Health of this province is an honorary patron of St. John Ambulance and is named in their annual report. I think that's because of the recognition for this remarkable organization's remarkable contribution to this province. I would encourage every member of this House to become fully aware of the St. John Ambulance, and whatever opportunity you have, whenever you're at an event as an MLA or as a minister, walk up to those volunteers and personally thank them for their time because of what they're giving back to us as a community.

T. Stevenson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, earlier I introduced my predecessor Emery Barnes, who is the campaign chair of the fundraising committee for the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation, and also Judi Angel, who is the executive director of the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation. I didn't realize that they were still out in the halls, but I've seen since then that they've joined us here in the gallery.

I just wanted to note that Emery, who indeed is my predecessor, was the MLA for 25 years in Vancouver-Burrard. I've been here now a year and a half, so to beat his record I have 24 more years to go. I'm just worried about how I'll look in 24 years. I hope that all members will make them welcome.

DR. PETER

Dr. Peter, as he was affectionately known, taught us about the human side of AIDS through his diaries chronicling the experiences of one person. His frank, matter-of-fact and often humorous approach to the terrible challenges of the disease endeared him not only to British Columbians but to many Canadians and helped us to empathize with the plight of persons with AIDS. Dr. Peter's quiet yet very apparent courage in allowing us into his life during those final days was quite remarkable and an inspiration to all of us.

His life was celebrated in this very Legislature at the time of his death, when all parties spoke of his contributions. I was fortunate to have first known him when we were both in university together in the late seventies and early eighties. I always admired his tenacity, the courageous stand he took and his zeal for life despite the debilitating disease he had. Before he died, Dr. Peter established the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation in the hope that his influence would continue to assist other people with AIDS. He understood that his life was blessed with close family and friends and many encouraging supporters to see him through his last days. But he was keenly aware that many people with AIDS would not be as fortunate. He therefore asked that his foundation be used to provide such comfort care for others.

Since Dr. Peter's death in 1992, the foundation has been living out his vision through the establishment of the Dr. Peter Centre. Phase 1 of the Dr. Peter Centre is Canada's first AIDS day centre, located in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. It has been a remarkable collaborative effort that has created this outstanding centre for health and healing, and I applaud the many diverse groups and individuals who worked so well together to achieve this common goal. I am deeply moved by the wholehearted support coming from people throughout the community: business professionals, AIDS advocacy groups, health care providers and other talented and compassionate members of the community from all walks of life who have given generously of their time and their talents. I am proud that this government, the government of British Columbia, can be counted on among the partners in this undertaking.

Just over one year ago, this government announced $1 million in funding to go towards the establishment of the first phase of the Dr. Peter Centre in response to the urgent need for such a day care program. This is just one example of the ongoing commitment of this government towards AIDS prevention, research and care for people living with AIDS, which in 1996-97 amounted to $28 million spent on HIV/AIDS. I was particularly gratified last year when British Columbia became the first province in Canada to fund the protease inhibitor saquinavir.

On June 5 of this year I had the honour of representing this government and the Premier at the official opening of phase 1 of the Dr. Peter Centre, designed to maintain the health of persons living with AIDS while allowing them to continue living at home and avoiding the use of expensive hospital beds. The provincial government is providing an annual operating grant of $1 million for the day centre. Already it is beginning to make a huge difference in the lives of the more than 50 people who are its first participants. This program will continue to be phased in to double its present capacity.

But the legacy of Dr. Peter does not stop with the day program at the Dr. Peter Centre, currently located at the temporary space at St. Paul's Hospital. It is just the first step. The Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation is preparing to build a permanent home for the Dr. Peter Centre, which will also include a hospice and residential beds. This is phase 2 of the project. The city of Vancouver has also demonstrated its support by reserving a site for the new Dr. Peter Centre at Comox and Thurlow, also in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard, for a one-year period. This is very close to St. Paul's and the centre for AIDS at St. Paul's.

The Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation has launched a private sector capital campaign under the chairmanship of Emery Barnes, my predecessor and the former Speaker of this House, to raise at least $2.5 million towards the capital cost of the project. These partnerships will reduce the cost to government of creating this important facility for our province. The Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation is planning to occupy its new home in time for what would have been the late Dr. Peter's 42nd birthday, on June 8, 1999. This government is fully supportive of the project.

The people working in Dr. Peter's memory understand that there is no time to waste. Although encouraging new drug treatments add hope to AIDS treatment, the sad reality is that the epidemic is indeed on the increase. In B.C. alone there are at least 1,000 new HIV-positive people each year. That 

[ Page 5993 ]

growth is among those with the fewest supports: women and men who may live in poverty or who suffer from other problems, such as mental illness or substance abuse. Programs like the Dr. Peter Centre are crucial in helping them to maintain their health and demonstrate how efficiently and effectively we can use health care dollars. This government is already supporting the operations of the first phase of the Dr. Peter Centre, Canada's first AIDS day centre, and will continue to provide assistance to the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation as it establishes the permanent home for the Dr. Peter Centre.

Dr. Peter was an outstanding British Columbian and a great Canadian who epitomized many fine qualities of the human spirit. We are proud that his legacy lives on through the centre which bears his name. Hon. Speaker, I respectfully ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing that memory, the inspiration and the legacy of the late Dr. Peter Jepson-Young.

A. Sanders: I did not personally know Peter Jepson-Young. He was a student at my medical school, and he was in a class several years behind my own. I would see him from time to time, either in the hospital or in the library studying, or sometimes on the ward -- places where I saw many others that I shared that time with.

Peter was an ordinary young man, sharing in common the collective dreams of every other medical student: he wanted to pass his medical board exams; he wanted to get an internship at a good hospital; he wanted to practise in a location he chose; and most importantly, he wanted a real life -- the kind we were told we were guaranteed to have after medical school was complete, with fun, freedom and hopefully friendships. But Peter Jepson-Young was dealt an extra card the rest of us were not; Peter had AIDS, and that changed everything.

By the time I knew he was sick, I had delivered my first HIV-positive baby. I recall being afraid and angry. It was hard to feel concomitantly responsible and at risk. The idea of contracting a deadly disease on the job created fear and discontent in a young professional. I found that the ethical dilemma was something my training had not addressed, and in my own small way, I, like Dr. Peter, found that life experiences were where we truly learned what we needed to know.

Later Peter was sick and had taken his personal story to television. By then I was dealing with my first AIDS patient, who was adamant that neither he nor I would tell his wife and children he was HIV-positive and dying. I watched Peter on television deal with his death, while I watched another deny his own. Eloquently, Peter used his television shows to chronicle his demise. The programs were therapeutic for all who watched and for all who cared. With grace and dignity he walked sightless -- blind from toxoplasmosis infection -- on the Vancouver seashore and shared the pain, incomprehensible disability and loneliness that is AIDS.

He gave AIDS an identity where none existed. He gave AIDS sufferers the soul that they and often their families could not find. Above all, he lent his ordinary, vulnerable face to a disease that fanned the flames of distrust, hate, and fear of homosexuals in specific, and of AIDS in general. He neutralized all of those noxious emotions with humour, intelligence and incredible generosity.

Peter Jepson-Young demonstrated in the chronicles of his demise a purification of purpose. He was there to educate, there to change attitudes, there to expand the boundaries of human acceptance. In doing so, he became a hero. He shared through his mortality, and he bridged the gap of ignorance and fear with a personal wisdom that was derived from inclusion, acceptance and understanding. We are all better people for what he did on our behalf. Thank you, Peter, wherever you are.

[11:00]

In fact, for those who are interested, there is a book about Dr. Peter. It's a description of Dr. Peter's passage into spiritual, social and political awareness through the illness of AIDS. The book is entitled Affirmation: The AIDS Odyssey of Dr. Peter, by Dan Gawthrop, a Vancouver writer. It was published in 1994 by New Star Books. I would highly recommend that for those who want to know a little more about Dr. Peter's own journey.

The foundation that has been created and the new centre that will be built are very, very exciting and very important for the gay community in Vancouver and also for the heterosexual community in Vancouver and elsewhere. It is indeed a bright light and very necessary for this ongoing struggle with this terrible disease.

I look forward to the construction and the completion of the new centre. I'm very fortunate that it is indeed going to be in my own riding. As some of you know, before being elected, I was a chaplain at an AIDS hospice in Vancouver. I have witnessed firsthand what the treatment means to so many people who come in with this disease and what an oasis it is for so many people. I personally have lost many friends over the years to AIDS and have many others now who are living with AIDS. I know personally, firsthand, just how important the centre will be and the foundation is.

I can tell you that all of the AIDS groups, as well as many other organizations that I've already mentioned, are firmly behind this. Under the guidance of Emery Barnes, they are setting out to raise $2.5 million. It's my hope that you would also support it and put the word out in your communities of the importance of this.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call the Committee A estimates summary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FISHERIES AND FOOD

The government has set an agenda of maintaining funding in health care and education. I guess we want to make the point from the opposition perspective that it cannot be done at the expense of resource industries and resource ministries 

[ Page 5994 ]

such as this one. This ministry's '97-98 budget is $56 million -- a very small amount of money in the relative scheme of things to do a big job.

A couple of other points. Farm incomes continue to be under pressure. The safety net program will be critical. I think of crop insurance in particular, where there have been changes. In my mind, there's still work to be done there.

Another point is on the processing sector. We've seen a recent report that shows that agrifood processing and fish processing. . . . We saw an announcement a couple of days ago about further support for a fish-processing plant in Prince Rupert. That whole sector is under pressure. I continue to believe that it would be good for the government to do an analysis of what's happening there.

Finally, I want to thank the minister and his staff -- particularly the staff. I didn't get a chance to do that at the end of estimates. We wrapped up rather quickly, so I want to thank the staff for their support throughout the process.

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you, hon. member, for your comments, and I'd like to thank my staff -- who I'm sure are watching this on TV -- for these notes that they've provided me with, which are excellent notes and are way more coherent than whatever it is that I am likely to say extemporaneously. To those of you who put them together, I appreciate that.

This ministry is older than the government itself -- older than the Ministry of Finance. In fact, for a whole lot of people through the history of British Columbia, this ministry was the government. If you wanted to talk to the government, you talked to the people who looked after agriculture; they were your friends. We used to help people find land to live on, design the buildings they lived in, picked out what to grow and helped them sell it. This is the ministry that essentially helped to settle the province.

In many respects it's still true; it's still that way. I've talked to lots of people who say that the Ministry of Agriculture is the only arm of government that they ever talk to that actually wants to help them do what they aspire to, on any given day. This is the arm of government that isn't saying to you what you can't do, what the regulatory rules are that make it difficult to do what you want to do, and it's not the arm of government that taxes you. This is the arm of government that gets up in the morning and goes out to help its client group get on with doing their jobs.

This fiscal year the ministry has been through parallel crises unprecedented in our history. One that was exceedingly difficult was the greatest fiscal reduction in the history of the ministry: that meant shock and difficulty for the people who work for us and for the people who count on us for resources -- even for the critic from the opposition and for the minister. An exceedingly difficult time.

Parallel to that, at the same time as resources are being reduced, this ministry, in its fish section, has taken on historically increased roles that no other province has ever had -- and we have never had -- to experience. In the last year we negotiated a complete change of responsibilities with the federal government, from being essentially a bit player to actually participating in finding a vision and a direction in the management of the fishing industry. That's a wonderful thing. It's a huge change. It's precisely what people from coastal communities, the fishermen themselves and first nations, have asked us to do. But in parallel with the fiscal reductions, it has been exceedingly difficult to absorb.

We went into estimates to discuss these changes, and I was pleased by the constructive nature of most of the questions from the other side. I was pleased that my own staff was able to take what was essentially accounting chaos, as we went into the beginning of the fiscal year, and deliver sense, organizational calm and clear answers to all the opposition's questions. Staff deserve huge credit for that.

Last year when I stood up to sum up my estimates -- and again failed to deliver the excellent words written for me on the page -- I actually took this opportunity to blast the opposition because of the ideological hodgepodge and failure to have a central vision in what they put forward in estimates. This time I'm not going to do that. I would like to thank them for the constructive nature of their participation. It seemed to me that the estimates process -- at least for this ministry -- recognized the difficulties that we had been through and looked forward, with some optimism, to the future. I only lost my temper once. I don't think it's worth repeating here. Although the hon. member that I lost it at isn't here, I'd like to say in absentia that I'm real sorry for that. You made me a little grumpy with some of your questions, but I take it all back.

I just want to say in conclusion that I really like this job, and I look forward to the next year with huge hope and optimism and good cheer. We are through the crisis time and beginning to define a role for ourselves that we can believe in, number one, and afford, number two. I'll see you here next year.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee A. For the information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, following through on the reporting out of Committee A estimates, I call the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

I will proceed expeditiously through this report. We did, of course, spend time dealing with some administrative questions surrounding the ministry. I found that useful for my own part insofar as acquiring something of a better knowledge of the inner workings and machinations of government generally and this ministry in particular.

[11:15]

What we learned and had reaffirmed by the minister yet again is that the stakes for British Columbians are very high. The amount of money is incredibly high. Billions of dollars are at stake in these negotiations. Resource revenues, access to 

[ Page 5995 ]

resources -- all of these are issues that, depending on their resolution today, will have an impact for years, if not hundreds of years, in the future of our province. The stakes are high. The debate will continue. I don't think we should be afraid of that.

Hon. Speaker, the last thing I want to say is about an issue we didn't canvass in estimates per se but which I know was on the minister's mind through that process and on the minds of members as we engaged in that debate. That is this government's response to the select standing committee, which was really winding up its deliberations and was in the final throes of preparing its final report, which the minister now has. It deals specifically with many of the issues we canvassed in the estimates process. The minister now has the benefit of the perspective of the members of the House as a whole -- his own party members and the opposition, insofar as there is a minority opinion attached to that report. Those are all issues that I know he will return to through these debates.

I pay tribute, lastly, to his staff for the assistance they provided. I am obliged to them for that.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, in contrast to the Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food, is a relatively new ministry, dealing with issues that should have been recognized many years ago -- a credit to all parties in this House mutually agreeing on the importance of getting on with the business that is the mandate of this ministry.

I want to say at the outset that I think the kind of dialogue, at least in my experience, that takes place in Committee A is a more valuable dialogue, perhaps because it is not quite as public as in this chamber, although it's important that those dialogues do be available to the public. It just seemed to me that there was, on the part of all sides of the House, less posturing and a more substantive exchange of ideas. That is a value that is afforded by the debate in that House.

I thought it was an excellent dialogue during the debate. I very much respect the input of the opposition parties and the very well-researched comments they brought into that dialogue. I too would like to commend staff, who were readily available in a briefing process. We tried our very best to make documents available as we could. There was much canvassing of the need for documents to be made available, and we did that as we were able.

We covered the issues of the treaty-making process. It made no secret of the fact that this really is the priority of this government with regard to the processes established under the B.C. Treaty Commission. It recognized -- as the hon. critic for the opposition has pointed out -- the importance of the Nisga'a agreement and also recognized the fact that all of this is happening in the background of the work of the select standing committee, which is very important.

I want to commend every member of this House who has served on that committee. I want to commend my colleague the member for Vancouver-Fraserview for his chairing of that committee and to say I was watching what was happening very carefully through the news reports and the reports that came out as that process went on. I was aware that there was a good relationship developing, where there was a very real mutual interest in coming up with a good product. I'm also proud of the fact that our government has been willing, in a somewhat historic sense, to grant the inclusion of a minority report in the body of that report. That is valuable for democracy.

Other important issues that were canvassed were around the Crown land activities policy, the fact that there are other first nations who don't buy into the treaty-making process that has been established -- they must be respected, their issues dealt with -- and the fact that we need to be looking at the whole issue of aboriginal relations.

But one of the points I made frequently was that it behooves the various line ministries to be taking up their responsibility in those areas, so that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs does not become an institution like the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, but that we truly be about working ourselves out of a job as we seek to resolve these longstanding issues. Issues were made about the cuts that have taken place in this ministry budgetwise, and the fact that in many ways this has enabled a much more focused approach.

Having said that, I again want to thank all members for their input into this debate. It's all about building a new relationship. I respect the fact that we have differing perspectives on that, but the desire to build that new relationship and get on with their lives and see an end to the poverty in first nations communities is something that we are absolutely united on in this House. That is a very good foundation for a good beginning.

That, hon. Speaker, is the conclusion of my remarks. Further on covering the reporting out of Committee A, I would now like to call on the Ministry of Attorney General.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I think the justice system in British Columbia is a system under stress, and I think this stress is the result, in part, of the government's approach to fiscal management and the fact that there are fewer dollars available for some programs than perhaps would be necessary, at least in an ideal world. Unfortunately, I think there is a risk that the infrastructure of our justice system is under stress in a way which, if it's not attended to, will soon become a longer-term, fairly significant problem.

Our corrections facilities are overcrowded. There are issues around the adequacy of resources in the police and Crown counsel parts of what our justice system does. I think there is -- although this is not an issue we canvassed at much length -- out there in the world of people who depend on legal aid, a significant challenge, as the Legal Services Society attempts to cope with the budget cutbacks that it has to deal with.

There was also -- for me, at least -- a perception over the past year that some of the decision-making that was being made in the ministry was being conducted on an ad hoc basis, driven more by a need to respond to budget constraints than 

[ Page 5996 ]

by an overall sense of a coherent vision about where the justice system should go. I hope that the result of all this is not to compromise public safety, but I think that question is always before us: what are we doing to improve both the climate of actual public safety in British Columbia and the perception that we live in a safe province? I think that is an important priority for those of us on this side of the House, and I know that from time to time the government certainly says that it's a priority for them. But the issue of the challenge of reform, the challenge of making the system work in a climate of fiscal restraint, is hard work. It is something that needs more than press releases; it needs actual constructive work.

On the day we commenced the estimates, the minister put forward a plan that I think offers some potential for ensuring that as we go forward, there will in fact be a coherent plan, and I will look forward to the minister's continued development of that plan and its implementation. I will, of course, be holding the Attorney General to account for his failures in that regard, to the extent that I can.

The last comment I want to make is about the fact that in large measure, I think the improvement that needs to be made to our justice system is something that can happen in a non-partisan way. I should make an offer which I've made before -- I hope it will occasionally be taken up -- which is an opportunity to work together in a constructive and non-partisan way to deal with some of the challenges that face us in the justice system in British Columbia. Over the next year we'll be keeping an eye on the extent to which the various programs that are in place and up and running are achieving their objectives. I look forward to the opportunity to return to this debate next year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had thorough debate during the estimates. The hon. member made some points during that debate. He's essentially reiterated those points, and I appreciate them.

I want to thank my staff that assisted me during the estimates debates. They're always wonderful. They prepare me well. Of course the opposition is usually not satisfied, and I appreciate that the hon. member felt that there were certain answers which weren't forthcoming but that others were. I guess that's the cut and thrust of debate.

I want to say, essentially, that in the last year or so we have come through a difficult time. We faced fiscal constraints, and I think despite those fiscal constraints, we have done a good job. One of the issues we faced was the courthouse closures. We looked at the issue, took another look at it and changed our minds on several of those courthouses after consultation with the public and communities in those areas. I understand that at the end of the day, those decisions have been improved as a result of the public input.

I also want to say with respect to legal aid that there is concern out there that there isn't enough money. But there is also the concern that needs to be expressed that the federal government has actually off-loaded $1.2 billion onto the province of British Columbia in the last few years. There isn't enough money to go around. We have said there is $81.5 million, and I've asked the management of the Legal Services Society, the board, as well as the community law offices and the lawyers who work on tariff to work together to make sure that we provide those essential services that need to be provided for the poor through the Legal Services Society. I'm prepared to provide them with any assistance that they require of me, with the exception, of course, of any more money, because there is no more money with respect to legal aid; that's all that we can afford at this time.

We have actually embarked on a remarkable journey of legal reform. It's going to be tedious; it's going to be difficult. We're going to have some pains as we go through. The courts are eager to move in that direction, both the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court judiciary. They are very eager, and they are participating fully in these endeavours that we're engaged in. We want to move toward a less aggravating, informal resolution of issues, through mediation and alternative dispute resolutions processes, and we're doing that.

We want to make sure that we deal with non-violent offenders in a way that makes them more accountable to the communities. In fact, it's more penalizing for them, because it extracts more responsibility from them through family-group conferencing or other forms of diversion. We want to make sure that we concentrate on real issues around public safety from violent, serious and dangerous offenders, which we continue to do.

[11:30]

I want to say that the staff in the judiciary -- apart from the judges; judges, of course, do a wonderful job, but I mean the staff that work with them in the court services -- in the corrections branch and in all of the other parts of the ministry are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances. As we don't have the money to keep throwing at problems, we need to be creative and come up with solutions that are affordable, acceptable, efficient and just. I think we're doing that. Once again, I want to thank the staff that came here and assisted us. I want to thank all of the people that work for the largest ministry in government. There are almost 6,000 people that work for this ministry, and I want to thank them for putting out their labour day after day in assisting me in doing a good job as I continue to struggle with these very important issues.

Hon. J. Cashore: Continuing with reporting out of Committee A, I call the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
AND HOUSING

I think I should briefly recap some of the more important issues we discussed during our period together. I am pleased 

[ Page 5997 ]

at the broad direction that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is taking with respect to its relations with local government. I think it is a very, very constructive change to see the joint council put in place where representatives from UBCM and representatives from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Attorney General ministry and others meet on a regular basis to discuss issues which are of joint concern to all of those parties. So I think that is very much a step in the right direction. It is also, as I noted with the minister, something that this side of the House has been advocating for some time: the joint council process. I think all members of the House can heartily endorse the direction that has been taken with respect to that.

The only exception we've seen in recent weeks with respect to issues not flowing through the joint council in the way this side of the House thinks they should is the issue of photo radar and whether municipalities should have the ability to opt in. We didn't quarrel so much with the policy issue but rather whether that was an issue which appropriately should have been referred to joint council. After some discussion, we obviously agreed to disagree on that important point. I think the way we left it was that joint council shouldn't be a mechanism that exists just to hear good news that is pending but should also be a mechanism that allows municipalities and regional districts to get some advance notice of when the province is contemplating legislation or initiatives that they may not endorse.

As well, I think we had a good discussion of the Infrastructure 2 program -- that is, the latest federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. I think the points that I tried to make to the minister -- and I hope that he, in retrospect, can agree with them -- is, first of all, that municipal government, UBCM, should have a role in determining the parameters of any future infrastructure program. As one-third partners, I think it's important that they also be partners in the creation of it -- also more emphasis on sewer and water.

I want to compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the safety review. I am pleased that the minister is looking very closely at the building inspection liability issue, which I think continues to be a very important concern for local government.

We talked about the downtown revitalization program and what a success that had been, and about the disappointment of local government on its termination, and we look forward to seeing a new successor program in place on that.

We talked about public-private partnerships and the need for enabling legislation, because local governments across this province are looking at that as a new way of achieving economic development. I understand from the minister that they are moving as expeditiously as possible to achieve that, and we look forward to seeing that.

The remaining issues, the problem we discussed yesterday and previously about Naramata. . . . Naramata is just one of 286 of those kinds of districts in the province, and I think the ministry will have to move to address that. Similarly, the declassification of provincial secondary highways will continue to be an important issue, and I hope that it is successfully resolved through joint council. With that, I'm hoping that this ministry and this government can continue on the path that they have, the path of closer consultation through joint council with local government, so we do not see any kind of repeat in the future of the sad lack of consultation surrounding Bill 2. I want to again thank the minister and his staff for, I think, a useful and constructive exercise.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank my hon. colleague the member for Shuswap for his comments, because I think they do characterize the tone of our debate and our discussions quite well. We had a thorough discussion in estimates on all aspects of the ministry and policy directions and where expenditures are going. We discussed, I think, a number of key issues important both to the ministry itself and to local government. We discussed the framework around which the relationship between the province and local government is going to evolve over the next few years. We had a thorough discussion around the joint council and the joint council process, how it's working, how each of us in our own different ways sees where it needs to go, and I think we had a lot of common ground there.

I myself am extremely pleased with the direction that we are heading. Legislative packages coming through this session and coming through future sessions have come about largely as a result of that joint council process -- largely as a result of a lot of work done within the ministry and within the UBCM and developing a package that can go forward with a broad base of support not only from government but from the fact that there are priorities that have been identified by local government.

The government is acting on them. Evidence of this, I think, is the fact that the statutes coming through -- Bill 46 -- have a huge number of changes that will eliminate a lot of red tape and needless duplication that local government has identified as standing in the way of them doing their jobs properly. That, as we discussed during estimates debate, is a precursor to a rewrite of the Municipal Act itself, making it more streamlined, making it more efficient, making it more of an enabling document, so that municipalities can do the job that they feel they need to do with the tools that they require. That's going to take place over the next few years, but it's being done in a consultative process through the joint council.

We discussed a number of other issues of importance to local government. The issue of traffic fines and photo-radarsharing. . . . There's work being done at the joint council level; it's being done between the ministry and the UBCM. We're trying to find long-term solutions to a problem that's been outstanding for decades. I think that that work will begin to bear fruit in the fall, and I'm extremely optimistic about the direction that we're going. We agreed to disagree on some areas: the change of pace around the issue of traffic fines and whether municipalities can opt in or opt out. We view it as an issue of safety; the opposition took a different view -- and that's as it should be.

As well, we discussed a number of issues of concern -- the member has touched on them -- such as Naramata. The fact is the government and the opposition have worked closely on this. I mentioned yesterday the discussion on the legislation. The member for Okanagan-Penticton. . . . We've been working very well, and I don't expect that relationship to change. The fact is that all of us in this House are concerned about the situation in Naramata. All of us are concerned about wanting to bring a resolution to this dispute, so that people can get on with their lives and we can get on with ensuring that they face as little hardship as possible and try to resolve things to everybody's satisfaction as much as we can.

Other legislation that was brought forward and has come out of that joint council process includes the fisheries legislation and the miscellaneous statutes bill which we passed. We had a thorough discussion on that in the estimates debate. That has come through the joint council process; there has been a lot of input from local government. So I am extremely pleased.

[ Page 5998 ]

We also touched on the other aspect of the ministry, which is housing. We talked a great deal about all types of housing, about the ministry's current policy. . . . I see the hon. member applauding. We talked about a lot of things, like where we need to go within B.C. Housing, where we need to go with housing in British Columbia. . . . We covered the gamut. We covered the gamut from whether we should look at replacing the shingle roofs in Prince Rupert with tin roofs, as the hon. member talked about, to looking at the issue of SROs, a very serious issue in Vancouver, and some solutions and possible resolutions to problems -- and the importance of SRO housing stock, in particular, in the downtown east side of Vancouver.

We discussed the full range of policies at B.C. Housing, improvements that the opposition critic felt could be made. I made a number of commitments in terms of implementing some suggestions and looking at them, and in terms of the fact that at the end of the day, this government is one of two governments in this country that is still building affordable housing stock. That's something that I think all British Columbians can be proud of. It's something that I know, over the next few months, we intend to pursue more aggressively.

As we discussed during the estimates debate, this was my first estimates debate. I've quite enjoyed it; I found it an extremely rewarding experience. At the end of it, both myself and the critic had a much fuller understanding of the workings of the ministry. I expect that next year we'll be able to go through and perhaps visit some areas more in depth, to see how we have progressed and look at some of the progress that we've made, concerns that have been identified and addressed.

With that, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again thank the member opposite and extend a very sincere vote of thanks to my own staff, who made the process. . . . They kept me fully briefed and were always ready when I needed them. With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. J. Cashore: Continuing with the reporting out of Committee A, I call Human Resources.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Human Resources and his staff. I know we spent more time dealing with the services provided by the new Ministry of Human Resources than we did last year. We felt that because of the change, the extra time was warranted. I must also say I found the minister and his staff most receptive this year. I am very pleased with the outcome of the estimates.

I leave the minister with one thought that I am sure he shares. It's becoming increasingly evident in British Columbia that people with disabilities and children of people with disabilities are finding it harder and harder to survive on the money they are given from the Ministry of Human Resources. That's a problem that we're going to have to address as a province, not just as a government and an opposition, so that people with disabilities aren't put in a position where the rest of their lives are spent in poverty and their children grow up in poverty because of the way they were born or because of an accident in the workplace.

I look forward to the ministry working on that problem in the years to come and also the necessity for assuring British Columbians that those people on assistance are not defrauding the system. I know the government has gone a long way to make sure that is happening. With those few brief words, I again thank the minister -- his staff and himself -- for the estimates process.

[11:45]

As well, hon. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my staff, who took the hours and the time to prepare me for estimates and prepare the ministry itself to examine the estimates. There is no doubt that this ministry has gone through substantial change since September of last year, retaining the major portion -- all the income assistance portions -- of the old Social Services ministry and the other work that this ministry does, and in the partnerships we have with Education, Skills and Training and with Children and Families for program delivery, to ensure that British Columbians who are in need of assistance get the very best service that we can possibly offer them.

Recognizing the change that has happened, the changes that have come about have been of major significance to the province. The average monthly income assistance caseloads fell last year by 9.4 percent. That's the largest drop in 20 years. The percentage of our population depending upon income assistance is down to 8.1 percent. That's the lowest level in five years. One of the significant success stories of the B.C. Benefits package is that the single-parent caseload has fallen every month since March of 1996. That's as a result of policies that this government brought about to assist individuals in transition to the workplace.

It's delivered, hon. Speaker, by our field staff. None of these initiatives, none of what we look at as assisting people away from income assistance and into the workforce, ensuring that the most vulnerable in our community are respected and get the services they need. . . . None of that is possible without the work of our field staff. This House would be remiss if we didn't recognize the work that happens with the folks on the front line, behind the desks and in our communities who deliver on behalf of British Columbians.

One of the spinoffs, I believe, from the examination of a ministry's estimates is that it gives us the opportunity, from time to time, to focus on what the differences are between what's before us -- the estimates of a ministry -- and what's proposed to be before us by those who are our critics. We found out during the course of the examination of these estimates that the member for Saanich North and the Islands had admitted. . . . In fact, as a critic, he's now in the process, 

[ Page 5999 ]

over the next year and half or two years, of developing policy for the Liberal Party of British Columbia on social services. It's a policy that we looked at during the spring of 1996, in the election, that would see major cuts to income assistance for British Columbians. Down to $470 for employable individuals was the proposal by the Liberal Party of British Columbia -- an almost $500 million cut from that budget.

I believe, with the requests that came forward from Saanich North and the Islands and Vancouver-Langara for increases in spending in Human Resources during the estimates, that the critic and Vancouver-Langara have at least walked away from that policy. I would hope that the Liberal Party of British Columbia would walk away en masse from the policy of the spring election of 1996.

That points out somewhat the difference between what's there on the table, what was an option and what is an option no more. I look forward, actually, to the critic from the Liberal Party coming forward with policy alternatives to what we're doing. What would assist more folks into the workforce? What kind of policy couplings with Human Resources Development Canada would assist folks into the workforce, to be working participants of our community?

The individuals who I speak with, virtually on a daily basis, within the system -- either in program delivery or administration or who are recipients of the system -- all want one thing. They want a better way of life. They come up with ideas of how to bring forward that better way of life and what their goals and aspirations are. Most of it centres around: "Help me get to work." This ministry, in conjunction with Education, Skills and Training, participates in a number of workplace-based training programs, whether they be Destinations, ASPECT, Training Works, Business Works and a number of others, and the success is absolutely phenomenal. As we've seen time after time, the participants in these programs have gone off to the workforce and are working in good jobs -- the bulk of them full-time jobs, most of them quite a bit above minimum wage, in the $9-to-$25-an-hour bracket. Those are the goals and aspirations of the people of British Columbia, and we know those are the goals, the ideals and the deliverables of the governing party in British Columbia. I would like to think, as the days and months go on and the Liberal Party comes forward with policy alternatives, that they will offer positive, open suggestions that will enhance the lives of British Columbians, not detract from them.

With that, I thank the critics opposite for bringing forward their good, solid advice during the process of the estimates and committing to work with me to enhance the lives of the British Columbians we serve through this ministry.

Hon. J. Cashore: Continuing with Committee A reports, I call the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND HIGHWAYS

It's very clear that many of these issues are not going to go away. Whether it's the Lions Gate Bridge, the aging infrastructure that's screaming for rehabilitation, the growing congestion on our highways, driver safety or motor carrier issues, they will continue to demand our attention, and solutions must be found. I do want the minister to know that I'm not without sympathy for the challenges facing her and her ministry. There is no doubt that in order to protect health and education, a number of ministries had to tighten their belts and face more prospect of trying to maintain or do more with less. Regardless of which political party we belong to, it's always easier to assume the role of critic and somewhat harder to implement the solutions that work.

Having said that, there is no doubt that we all have to agree to disagree on some occasions. I believe that while we share some common goals, there are some differences in the way we approach things. Unfortunately, I believe that our philosophy is fundamentally different. Any government in power at this time is going to face these same challenges, but the difference is measured in our approach to solving these problems. I don't believe that a closed-shop tendering process is the most efficient approach. I don't believe that it represents sound management of taxpayers' dollars, but philosophically it's clear that this government has an obligation to support the objectives of union and labour organizers. This is a very costly approach. Government and unions do not create jobs; small businesses and people with entrepreneurial spirit create jobs. This is more successfully accomplished when we see the investment climate that fosters growth through free enterprise, open tendering, strong and healthy competition and a minimum of red tape and regulation. That should be our common goal.

I hope that we can all work towards that end. It's my intention to consult with the minister and her staff. Unfortunately, it's difficult to work together if we're not armed with the information. I hope that the minister will continue to assist me in my role as opposition critic by allowing me to have access to the necessary facts and figures. I would also like to encourage the minister and this government to consult with constituents before arbitrarily taking action. There have been a number of incidents in policy change over the past year. We have seen tremendous negative fallout. Many times this government has changed its position, but very often it has been after the fact. The public is losing confidence in the government as a result. This might be avoided in many cases, if there were more thorough consultation with all the members of the House. Many times it is not a policy but the manner in which it is implemented.

We may continue to have our differences, but that does not mean we cannot work together to encourage good decisions on behalf of British Columbians everywhere. I believe that the minister is sincere in her desire to do what's best for this province. That we might work all together towards this goal is my sincere hope.

Hon. L. Boone: I do want to sincerely thank the member opposite, the critic for this ministry, for his very thoughtful comments during our estimate process and for making our estimate process one of the nicer and friendlier ones in this House. But you did bring some very thoughtful comments, as did many of your members.

I would be remiss, also, if I didn't recognize the number of comments coming from yourself and from your members 

[ Page 6000 ]

opposite in terms of thanking my staff for their assistance, both in Victoria and in the regional offices. That truly shows that they are working on behalf of all British Columbians. I really do appreciate the recognition that many people in this House have given to those staff. I would like to personally thank them as well, because they do a tremendous job.

The member mentioned the fact that our budget has been severely impacted. It's true; I make no bones about that. Our ministry budget has been cut severely so we could put the dollars into health and education.

Unfortunately, that's had an impact on staff. I do want at this point in time to recognize the staff throughout the province who have had individual problems and family difficulties as a result of downsizing. You have to recognize the impact that it's had on communities and everybody. I want to thank them for the job they continue to do on behalf of all British Columbians, despite a very tough economic time and some very tough economic decisions that are being made.

Even though we have had some difficulties in terms of budgets, we have had a year that's seen implementation of some good projects. I want to again thank the member for assisting us in the review of the Motor Carrier Commission, which he sat on. It travelled throughout the province and brought forth some very good recommendations to the government, which hopefully we'll be acting on soon.

We've also done some good work on the truck safety review. That's bringing forth some recommendations that I believe are going to make a big difference to our highways and make our highways safer.

We've also seen the opening in the past year of some of our major structures, such as the Westview interchange, the HOV lane on the Barnet-Hastings, some of the areas of the Island Highway. Hopefully, we'll see some decisions coming down very quickly on the Lions Gate Bridge and what we're going to do with that structure.

[12:00]

The member is right, we do have an aging infrastructure. We do have, in many areas of the province, a growing population. We do have needs that are far more than what the taxpayer right now can afford to pay. So as a ministry we're looking at every alternative around public-private partnerships, at any ways that we can stretch our -- your -- tax dollars to make sure that our infrastructure system is upgraded to the best interest of everybody. Again, I would like to thank the member opposite for his very kind words.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, in view of the fact that all but approximately one half-hour of the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality were conducted in Committee B, with the agreement of the House, I request that we not require reporting out of that committee.

Deputy Speaker: Leave has been requested to change the rules for that ministry. I'll put the question to the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Cashore: Continuing with reporting out of Committee A, I call the Ministry of Labour.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF LABOUR

The Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Labour are not there to serve the interests of the building trades unions in this province. The Construction Labour Relations Association has seen its share of the construction industry in the last 15 years decline from 80 percent down to 25 percent of construction in British Columbia. If you look at the reasons why, it's that the unions refused to change, to modernize, to bring flexibility and to recognize a modern workplace when they see it. But instead, we have a Ministry of Labour and a government that bring in legislation to take labour relations in this province back to an era when that kind of archaic trade unionism was appropriate.

We have a Minister of Labour and a Ministry of Labour who do not appear to have been involved with what was probably the most fundamental piece of labour legislation in the last ten years, certainly in the last five years.

Labour relations in British Columbia have generally served this province well since 1973, when the Labour Relations Act was first brought in. That Labour Code, I believe, has been a good balance between the interests of management, the interests of the employer and the interests of the trade union movement. I'm the first one to recognize that that balance was fundamentally upset in 1987, when Bill 19 was brought in by the Social Credit government.

But what we have seen since this NDP government has been in power is that instead of bringing balance back to the Labour Code, balance back to labour relations in British Columbia, we have a Ministry of Labour and a government that have swung the pendulum back in the other direction, in favour of the trade union movement. In 1992, when they brought in the changes to the Labour Code in Bill 84, they fundamentally upset that balance that is so vital to a healthy economy in British Columbia.

Now, what we have seen this year is this Minister of Labour bringing in a piece of legislation that I don't believe he understood, that I don't believe he had a lot to do with. It further pushed the imbalance in labour relations in British Columbia in favour of the trade union movement and to the detriment of the democratic rights of workers in British Columbia.

This week we have been told that Bill 44 is dead, that it is no longer up for debate in this Legislature. But in fact, all that has changed is that this government has decided that it is not going to ram through this piece of legislation in the hot days of summer, when the public isn't paying attention. That's all that has changed. They are not repentant about what's in Bill 44; they are not withdrawing the basic, fundamental initiatives of that legislation. They're going out for consultation, and there's every indication that the consultation is merely a sell job on this piece of legislation.

They had Kelleher and Ready recommending against sectoral bargaining in their report last year, and they ignored 

[ Page 6001 ]

Kelleher and Ready; they went on and did what they felt like doing. Now they're asking Kelleher and Ready to do a consultation process. We on this side of the House have no faith in this government to listen to Kelleher and Ready, as they ignored their advice a year ago.

The public in this province deserves better. The public deserves a Minister of Labour and a Ministry of Labour that will stand up for a balance in labour relations in this province, that will commit themselves to returning to a balance between the interests of those two economic forces in British Columbia. We don't need a government that's going to upset that balance and drive investment and jobs out of this province, which is exactly what that piece of legislation does.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

When we come back to the estimates of the Ministry of Labour in the next session of this Legislature, I hope that we will be able to stand up here and applaud the work that this minister and this ministry have done in returning to a commitment, returning to the objectives of that ministry, which should be to ensure that we have balance in our labour relations, that we have a Ministry of Labour that's going to stand up for the rights of workers, a Ministry of Labour that's going to stand up for the rights of employers and a Ministry of Labour that will stand up for the rights of the trade union movement. It's only if we have that balance in the Ministry of Labour that we will have the kind of policies that I think the taxpayers and the voters in this province truly deserve.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member, the official opposition Labour critic, for that very thoughtful reflection on the debate that took place during estimates. I want to say that during the estimates debate, again, I personally felt that the environment in Committee A was a better place for a thoughtful dialogue and for the kind of useful debate that sometimes breaks out in the matters that government and opposition work on together.

I want to commend the former Labour critic, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, for the thoughtful way in which he raised a great many issues within that debate -- often challenging, often bringing in very important perspectives that represented the finest of the role of an official opposition. I want to express my appreciation to the official opposition for the opportunity to work with him in those estimates. Also, the member for Richmond East, who I think is one of the most knowledgable individuals I've ever met with regard to the workings of the Workers Compensation Board, brought a very insightful commentary into that debate and indeed made some very helpful suggestions, which not only I found personally helpful but which were very impressive to the staff of the Ministry of Labour.

There were very positive comments from the official opposition with regard to the briefing that the staff of the Ministry of Labour provided for the opposition. I actually had one individual tell me that it was the best briefing that they had ever had. It was very helpful, and it helped to contribute to the very good discussion that we had in that debate.

I'd also like to welcome the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. We've seen that we are going to have very spirited and thoughtful and passionate representation from him, and I commend him for that. I was a little surprised to hear a leadership speech breaking out during the reporting out of estimates, but be that as it may, I want to tell him that I look forward to a good ongoing relationship.

The Ministry of Labour has, I think, among other things, a very important role, which is to be a keeper of a process. The process very much relates to the Workers Compensation Board, the employment standards branch and the Labour Relations Board. Since the legislation that we brought in during 1992 has been in place, it has been the most stable labour relations climate since the Second World War -- with the number of days lost, on a comparison basis, being lower than in any other time during that period in history. I think that was very informative with regard to the history of labour relations that have characterized British Columbia, going back a long, long time. I think that will be evidence of the balance within that code and of the fact that it and the process have worked well.

As I have acknowledged, I take responsibility for the problems with the process with regard to the bill that has been pulled. I think that, as the hon. member said, going forward into the next session of the Legislature, we will ensure that that is an even better understood piece of legislation.

I would like to say that one of the absolutely outstanding accomplishments of the business community and labour is the work that they have done together in establishing what will be the finest apprenticeship training system in all of North America, as we see that legislation go through the House. I want to recognize the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who, when he was Minister of Labour and Education, set up a committee representing business, labour and education that came forward with a report. Implicit within that report is virtually every recommendation that came forward from that consensus-seeking, consultative and very effective approach that resulted from the leadership of this government. And I really want to commend him.

I also want to recognize the Minister of Education, who, jointly with the Minister of Labour, is responsible for the process of that apprenticeship system that will be actually driven by those people who are appointed to the board and who represent those various categories. If we just look back to about 1997, when there was great conflict among those entities with regard to how apprenticeships should be handled, I think this ensures that we are going to have a very highly trained and well-qualified workforce prepared to do the jobs that are emerging that need to be the jobs of the next millennium to ensure that we do have that strong workforce.

Having said all that, it's somewhat interesting and a concern that the actual density of union membership since bringing in the Labour Code has actually declined in the province, which I think is an appropriate comment in view of some of the comments that we've heard made.

The ministry is also responsible for pension standards, and that's an area that obviously we continue to monitor.

Primarily, our main concerns are to keep the process and keep it well so that it maintains the excellent climate of labour relations that we have in the province, and also to recognize, through the Workers Compensation Board, the importance of workplace health and safety. We look forward to the results of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation.

Finally, as I said before, the next main point that really needs to be emphasized is the importance of a good apprenticeship program, which I know all in this House support.

Having said that, I would like to conclude my comments and to take the opportunity now to call the report from Committee A.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 6002 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I wish all members an enjoyable and safe weekend. Let us all be reminded to drive safely. I'm sure it's going to be very busy out there on the roads. I hope people can have some time with family, as well as attending to their constituency duties. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING
(continued)

A. Sanders: Last evening we commenced talking about operating budgets. I would like to continue today on that note, specifically to address a very large overview of operating budgets -- not, at this point, the operating budgets of certain school districts. On Monday I would like to do that specifically, when all of the MLAs from both sides of the House are present. They may have questions specifically about their particular operating budgets and their school districts.

Ninety percent of the funding for the operation of the K-to-12 system comes out of the provincial government's consolidated revenue fund. Education is second in provincial expenditure only to Health. So we get an idea of the very large significance of the business we are doing here in the estimates for Education. We also heard from the minister last night that the enrolment of '96-97 was projected to increase by 14,000 young people, and the '97-98 projection is for 10,703. We also touched momentarily on the 60,000 young people in Hong Kong who may find their way here at some point in time. So we are looking at a very big business expenditure in education. The operating budgets for this expenditure for educating our young people really are a significant chunk of the money that we derive from our taxpayers.

Specifically, to start the line of questioning, I'd like to ask the minister: what is the funding for the '97-98 budget based on in terms of calculation? Is that calculation the same as it was for the '96-97 operating budget?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, just a minor factual correction to the member's statement. Staff advise that their calculation suggests that school districts derive 96 percent of their funding from provincial coffers.

The principles on which the budget for this year was derived were a projected increase of 10,700 students in the system for '97-98 and a reduction of 0.77 percent in perstudent costs. As I said last night, that is the percentage equivalent of the $27 million in efficiencies that were flagged back in the spring of 1996 in the public education restructuring report. So those are the principles on which the budget was based. There were considerable discussions with some of the partners in education prior to a finalization of the budget and its tabling in the Legislature. I think I'll leave it at that and wait for subsequent questions.

A. Sanders: As the minister has mentioned, the actual operating budget for '97-98 is down from the '96-97 level, primarily because of the 0.78 percent efficiency reduction that all of the districts were to experience. Does the minister feel that this was a realistic reduction for all districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is yes. As I said -- I'll repeat it again -- last evening, during the public education restructuring consultation exercise, staff from my ministry and the School Trustees Association met with every school district, I think, in the province to discuss this and how we get more efficiencies into the delivery of education services.

As the member knows, the original target for restructuring was to reduce the number of school boards to 37. At the end of that process, the decision made was not to cut that many but only to reduce the number of school boards to 59. However, the restructuring committee spent a great deal of time talking about areas in which the delivery of services could become more efficient while retaining the high quality of classroom operations. That led to some very clear targets in the report, which was mutually signed by my ministry and the school trustees of the province.

It called for an initial reduction in funding to school districts of $13 million in the first year, the '96-97 school year, and then a $27 million reduction this year, '97-98, and $35 million next year. The decision in the spring of 1996 was that we should not require the $13 million in the '96-97 school year since the report had just come in and we felt that more planning time was required. However, it was clear to all parties -- or the assumption was that it was clear -- that they should plan on achieving the efficiencies in the administration and service areas of their budgets that the restructuring committee recommended for the '97-98 fiscal year. And the target, which was secret to no one, was $27 million.

The report didn't stop there, of course. It gave a long list of areas in which school boards themselves had said they could either gain efficiencies within an amalgamated district or by sharing services with neighbouring districts. And so this year when we announced it. . . .

I want to come back to a point that the member specifically asked about. The report itself said to government and to school districts that this efficiency should not be required only of amalgamated districts, but that every district should be asked to achieve these efficiencies: in amalgamated districts by streamlining operations within the districts, in unamalgamated districts by sharing services between them. This was the recommendation of the report. When I received the report, I accepted that recommendation and indicated clearly that government intended to act in that way.

A. Sanders: For clarification, were the amalgamated districts expected to save the 0.78 percent in efficiency along with the already substantial cuts they received in terms of the amalgamation? Was this 0.78 percent applied to them above and beyond the changes in their base budget?

[ Page 6003 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, this was a slightly heavier burden on the amalgamated districts, because they also faced a reduction in the administration part -- the straight district administration part -- since amalgamation was eliminating one of the administrations.

A. Sanders: Let's use the minister's mathematics minor here, hon. Chair. We've got the amalgamated districts losing, I guess, one-half of their administrative budget. In addition, they will lose the 0.78 percent for efficiency that was required for all districts, regardless of amalgamation or not. Those are two figures. I guess the first question in this line of questioning would be: for an amalgamated district, what percent of the overall budget would that loss of the increment for administration be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're trying to figure out whether percentage is the right way of measuring. It's probably not, since it will vary greatly depending on the size of the school district and their budget. It was a standard amount. There is a base of around $360,000 that's given to each district for central administration. We've reduced that by half in the '97-98 fiscal year to provide one-time support for really preserving some overlapping administration. It's requiring them to save $180,000 per amalgamated district.

So the situation would be this: if you had two districts unamalgamated, each would receive $360,000 for central admin. We amalgamated them. Rather than reducing it to $360,000 for one district -- the amalgamated district -- we said: "Here's $360,000, and we'll also give you what we call one-time amalgamation support of $180,000 per district."

[11:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've seen various figures; the ministry is working on a figure of around 1 percent.

A. Sanders: In terms of the federal government requiring school boards to pay the increments for EI and CPP, let's use a typical district; let's use my district, because it's one I'm certainly familiar with. What would be the percent of the cost that the school board would have to have had in order to cover early payments for the incremental increase in those particular premiums?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're just making sure that the calculator is confirming what our off-the-top-of-the-head math told us. The total impact -- all school districts, all employees -- is around $1.7 million on a base of $3.5 billion, which amounts to 0.05 percent.

A. Sanders: For a district similar to the size of Vernon, what would have been the increase for the school board in the WCB premiums for this calendar year of '97-98?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have to make sure we get a correction on the record here. The figure that staff provided me, the $1.7 million across the system, was for both CPP and WCB. This was the combined employee benefit pressure from other agencies. So each of them individually would be smaller than that. Jointly, it's $1.7 million across the system, or 0.05 percent.

A. Sanders: In terms of the contracts with the non-BCTF unions -- CUPE, etc. -- with teachers having their 1 percent increase, which was funded by the ministry last year and this year, what would be the percentage increase that the school board in Vernon, for example, would have to come up with to cover the costs of those increases in contracts that did accompany the BCTF contract but were not paid for by the ministry after the Premier made the settlement with BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member knows that negotiations for support staff rest with school districts. Obviously the employers association, BCPSEA, is adhering to PSEC guidelines on settlements, which for that year are a maximum of 1 percent. That's the highest that would be approved. Now, if every district settled at 1 percent for every support union, and if there were no reductions in the number of staff through efficiencies or other means within those unions -- both of those are rather outer-edge assumptions -- the total impact on the entire system would be $5.6 million, which, if rough calculation serves, would be in the neighbourhood of 0.18 percent.

A. Sanders: It's interesting to look at what we ask our boards to do. I truly do feel that it is the minister's responsibility to tell the boards what to do and to make sure that they follow those guidelines and that by law they maintain and balance their budgets within the guidelines of the School Act. However, it is also very important for us to recognize the conundrum that many of them have had this year, when we look at the fact that they have been asked not to cut services to children in classrooms at the same time that we've decreased their funding by 0.78 percent. If they have been amalgamated, we've also decreased their administration funding by $360,000 -- one time -- which may be quite significant for some of the boards, especially the ones I see around me -- the Armstrong-Salmon Arm type of situation. Also, if the support staff got 1 percent, as the teachers have -- and many of the contracts do follow the BCTF contract -- that's another 1 percent they may not have for kids anymore, along with their 0.01 percent CPP-WCB increment.

I mean, we're looking in some school districts at the potential of less money from government, based on inflation, increased expectations from the federal government, and on and on and on, with almost a 2.84 percent decrease in the funding to a prototype district from '96-97 to '97-98. I think the point is not whether or not that is reasonable. It is more that we definitely have asked school boards to do the same with less. In fact, they have been instructed not to cut classroom services.

From looking at this overall picture and from looking with the retrospectoscope we have the privilege of using. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Is that a medical term?

A. Sanders: No, actually it's an Aprilism. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: Is it parliamentary? Yes, hon. Chair, everything that comes out of my mouth is parliamentary. It will be the first thing you'll learn about me over the next four years.

Has the minister found that what he has set out for the school boards to do in terms of actualizing the plan of keeping classroom services, along with what are more significant cuts than 0.78 percent -- there's that creeping cut of all these other 

[ Page 6004 ]

small things that come in. . . ? In the submissions to the ministry from school districts, has the minister found that school districts have in fact been able to achieve what the minister set out for them to do?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just say a couple of things here. First, I am not sure where the member gets the 2.84 percent; we can discuss that. As we discussed last night, 60 percent of the bills that a school district pays are wages and benefits for teachers. As I think we've agreed, the operating budgets this year were based on recognizing and paying 100 percent of the cost of the provincially negotiated contract, because it was a contract negotiated at a provincial level and facilitated by government. So yes, there are inflationary pressures, and we've tried to quantify those for you. And yes, we are requiring school districts to make savings due to amalgamation.

Not to dwell on it, but I would remind the member that her leader -- at a time she wasn't here; I recognize that -- proposed that school district amalgamation be implemented, that we set a target of having 20 school districts in the province, and that we require savings of $50 million from this exercise. We did not go to that extent, and I think. . . . I'll leave it there.

I think everybody who has looked at the school district situation, both in this province and in other provinces, has said that we badly needed to get on with restructuring the system of support and service that surrounds the delivery of classroom services, both in this province and across the country. Compared to what's happening in other provinces, amalgamation here has been relatively modest, and the savings required in the second year of amalgamation have been relatively modest, as well.

The specific question the member asked -- and I wanted to get to it -- was: in their reporting to the ministry, have districts made reductions in the areas that we expected them to? And the answer is: not all of them, to my satisfaction. All 59 districts have now submitted their budgets. In 50 of them, 75 percent or more of reductions have clearly been made in areas other than classroom services. And then there's a grey area around the edges of this in all budgets. Nine of them -- at least on the information I have to date -- have not met that standard, and we've written to those districts asking for further information about where they have chosen to make reductions.

[11:45]

There are a couple of things. First of all, there was congruency of thought on both sides of the debate that amalgamation was a potential cost-saving device for schools, and that the number of districts we have could certainly be decreased. I think the final number is basically a moot point, in that the final number is something that does finally arrive through presentations to government -- as it did, going from 50 to 59. What was suggested in the PERC amalgamation report, which did look at the amalgamation of districts, was the potential difference between restructuring and amalgamation. From some of the districts that I have looked into, I still think this is something that is an unfinished process and needs to be looked at more conclusively.

One of the key issues that was different on this side of the House from that side of the House was the aspect of what is called consultation. To me, consultation is a very, very important aspect of government. NDP consultation is in the same oxymoron category, from my experience, as jumbo shrimp. It is very much an oxymoron. Consultation means that I send you a letter after it's done, and we see if you agree.

I recognize that this is very easy to say when you are not government; nevertheless, I have the floor, so I will say it, anyway. It is a circumstance where the amalgamation process, in terms of restructuring or amalgamation. . . . Consultation was the key here. Whether or not we look further at that in terms of savings or whether amalgamation was going to result in any savings is itself a point of controversy between those you talk to who actually looked at the structure of amalgamation.

Nevertheless, what I'm getting at here specifically is that we've put the pinch on school boards, and we've put the pinch on school boards in amalgamated districts maybe a little bit more -- well, obviously a bit more -- than we have in other school districts. But all of those school districts are facing a decrease in their operating budget this year and yet have been asked to do the same amount in terms of classroom services.

In terms of the operating budget, just for the record and for the benefit of that record, I'd like the minister to give me the actual figure for per-pupil funding for '96-97, followed by the per-pupil funding for '97-98.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, I'll be glad to provide that figure, but I must confess that I do have to respond to some of this member's comments on the process that led to the PERC report. If this member doesn't think that that was exhaustive consultation, I invite her to have lunch with Carole James and find out just how exhaustive it was -- and exhausting for those who were involved in a months-long process which took those charged with doing the work to every corner of the province for public and private meetings, which led to some clear recommendations to me, as minister at the time, and then to government on the extent to which we should and could require efficiencies in administration delivery and should and could amalgamate school districts.

I must say that hearing the member comment on this makes me want to speculate that jumbo shrimp may be an oxymoron but so is the phrase "Liberal consistency." I mean, this is the party that prior to the election proposed -- and I'll use my "retrospectoscope" -- an even more aggressive plan for amalgamating districts with an even more aggressive target for savings. Now, the member might not wish to acknowledge it, but surely, if we are to be slagged for not doing consultation well -- and I reject that, in this particular case -- I would ask the member to at least try for a little more consistency in approach from her party.

It is, of course, one of the privileges of opposition not to necessarily remember today what one said yesterday, but the debates on these estimates to date have been marked by an attempt to adhere to the facts. The facts in this case are indeed that the amalgamation that has taken place is modest in terms of what has happened across Canada. The savings expected are modest, and they come nowhere near the plan that the Liberals at least said they intended to do and impose on the school districts of the province.

[ Page 6005 ]

The per-pupil funding figures for this year, compared to last year, restated, are: for '96-97, $5,799, and for '97-98, $5,756, a difference of $43, which -- and I'll repeat it -- is the way the amount works out per pupil from the $27 million in restructuring as a result of the recommendations of the PERC report.

A. Sanders: Gee, I wasn't really going to talk about the PERC report, but I'll just have to add one more comment. From my reading of the PERC report -- and yes, it is an exhaustive report, and it did go across the province -- it did show that, more than amalgamation, in many cases the answer was restructuring and that amalgamation would not necessarily save any money. Yet this minister has asked districts to save $27 million this year. This is a fairly significant figure.

In terms of Liberal policy, we did have an economic policy that was verified by a third party. Yes, there was a differential in education, but we were always a party that was going to hire additional teachers in this province, and our economic policy was built on a balanced budget, which we had been told about by this government. As we all know now, that was most certainly not the case. In fact, including Crown corporations, our provincial debt was $800 million more than anticipated. So there are some problems here in terms of looking back with both retrospectoscopes.

Looking at the per-pupil funding and the decrease of $43 per child, could the minister give me again the complete pendulum swing on that difference? In other words, what was the highest differential for a district and what was the lowest? I understand that some districts actually got more money, and some had considerably less per student. What was the largest impact in the negative view, and what was the smallest impact or, in fact, positive result?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are some extremes to the spectrum. I know the member opposite recognizes that when you ask for the end points on a distribution, you get some rather extreme numbers. The largest reduction was for the Gulf Islands school district, which was $212 per student. They were still eighth in the province in per-student funding, and they still got an increase in funding. The highest change was Stikine, the one that encompasses an area the size of France. They got an increase of $127 per student.

A. Sanders: Would the minister be comfortable sharing that particular sheet of information with this member?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's probably derivable from stuff that's out there in the public, anyway. It will save you the trouble of having somebody enter it on the spreadsheet. It does go all over, and there are some quite significant differences.

I might just note to the member that this sort of range of pluses and minuses is fairly typical for changes from year to year. Even had there been no efficiency requirement, there are changes in enrolment, particularly changes in enrolment of special needs children, that result in wide fluctuations in per-student funding when they're factored in. A few initiatives in special education, minor changes here or there, can result in quite wide swings in what the per-student amount is. So it's a measure of where the money goes, but I would just caution the member that this sort of range of changes is not atypical. You know, you have this sort of range virtually every year.

A. Sanders: On that note, would the minister provide for me the same spreadsheet from the year before for comparison?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Sure, we'll dig it out.

A. Sanders: Of those districts on the spreadsheet, how many districts actually received incrementally more funding -- a positive balance -- in this budget year?

[12:00]

On the total provincial funding, of course -- since you have, as we discussed, funding based on a projected 10,700 student enrolment -- the majority of districts received an increase in funding this year because they have rising enrolments. But there are clear concentrations of those, so 33 districts went up in overall allocations from the province, and 26 went down. In many cases, particularly in some of the rural areas, it's driven more by decline in enrolment than by change in funded amount.

A. Sanders: Along that line of questioning, does that mean if your enrolment is declining in a school district that you would likely have a decrease in the per-pupil funding?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If you have a decrease in enrolment, you'll surely have a decrease in the amount of students you're funded for. Therefore you would expect a decrease in overall funding -- okay? A per-student amount is an inverse relationship. If you have fewer students, your per-student funded amount will go up slightly, since you're still supporting the same number of schools, the same district administration, the same wide-ranging services that apply whether you have, say, 5,000 students in school or 5,500. It's an inverse relationship on declining enrolment versus the per-student amount.

A. Sanders: It's a fairly complicated area. I apologize for taking time on it, but it is something I get asked about quite significantly.

In the press, when we were not in the House, I remember the minister getting hit on the fact that his own school district got an increase in funding. I want him to have the opportunity to explain that to us here.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct. The per-student funding amount in district 57, Prince George, went up by $54 per student this year. It was driven by three factors. There are three factors here that were adjustments to the formula. This is the work that the ministry does every year, receiving submissions from districts around the province and concerns about whether the formula adequately recognizes various factors in the cost of delivering education, as we discussed last night.

There were three changes made to the formula in the spring of this year which had a positive impact on the Prince George budget and on many of the districts in rural and 

[ Page 6006 ]

remote regions. One of those was a geographic factor, which tries to recognize the cost of delivering services in a vastly spread out region. Since the Prince George district stretches from the Alberta border to Prince George and from Hixon through Mackenzie, it benefited from that. It also benefited from the change in recognition of transportation costs, again very much a geographically tied factor, and it benefited from the change which really went across the province in the per-student funding for career programs. Those factors influenced the district positively, as it did many other districts.

There were also some specifics that positively affected per-student funding in the Prince George district. The most significant was an increase in average teacher salary relative to other districts. That gave them slightly more, because they had more higher-paid teachers. That resulted in a change there. Then there was a slight change in the number of reported special education students, which again tipped the funding up slightly. There were some negative factors, as well, but those were relatively minor. There were a few positive pushes on it.

I must say that I found the events of the spring around this issue fascinating. I'm tempted to say that I needed some of those good, hi-tech drugs that the member has been advocating for those suffering with bipolar disorder -- or schizophrenia, excuse me. While in this House and in this precinct I was being criticized for somehow intervening nefariously behind the scenes to give Prince George more money per pupil -- which was simply not the case, though Prince George did benefit from some systematic changes and from some local changes -- and I was being fried at home for not funding Prince George equitably with other districts. I accept that. It's part of the interesting life we lead in this profession.

Fortunately, we were able to ask some senior staff to go to Prince George and brief media, school district personnel and others on the funding formula and why there were clear disparities between the per-student funding of Prince George and what was seen as an equivalent district, Kamloops, which receives higher funding than Prince George. We worked through much of the ground that we're working through in these estimates: what factors are in there, which ones went up, which ones went down, and how variable it is from year to year. The short answer is an increase of $54, and I think we've walked through where we are in terms of what factors led to that.

A. Sanders: I just want to ask one question, and then I'll allow the minister to close the House for the weekend. Would it be possible for those in school boards to artificially inflate the number of special education students in order to get a higher budget? I'm hearing over and over again that the reason this place got more money than that place was the number around special education. If I were scrambling for money, the first thing that would probably cross my mind would be to expand the definition of special education. Is this something that we have a good accountability structure in place for, so that -- if it's possible -- this does not, in fact, occur?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In theory it's possible, but you wouldn't get away with it for long. We do trust our districts to do accurate assessments based on the criteria for various categories of special education. If there are increases, we check by phone, asking them to explain very clearly what's happened, if anything is out of the ordinary. Then we do thorough audits of a sample of school districts each year to make sure everybody is living within the same definitions. I guess, as my deputy says, the right thing here is trust -- but verified.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again -- but not until next week.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:11 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada