(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 21, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 7, Number 3
Part 1
[ Page 6007 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Bowbrick: It's my pleasure today to have in the gallery my aunt and uncle, Gail and Doug Crawford, who are with us today from the land of scorched earth -- that being Alberta. They've come to witness how an actual multiparty system of government works. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
M. Coell: In the gallery today is Arlene Jule. She is a Liberal MLA in Saskatchewan and my counterpart -- the critic for social services -- in that province. Would the House please make her welcome.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 51, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997. This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act; Company Act; Constitution Act; Creston Valley Wildlife Act; Ferry Corporation Act; BC Forest Renewal Act; Highway Act; Insurance Corporation Act; Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act; Land Tax Deferment Act; Legal Services Society Act; Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act; Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Teaching Profession Act. Of course, we will deal with these in second reading and in committee stage.
Bill 51, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997
(MOTORIZED CYCLES)
J. Sawicki: The purpose of this act is to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to recognize the motorized cycle as a specific mode of transportation. Conversely, this bill will thereby exempt motorized cycles from certain requirements applicable to other motor vehicles. Currently, bicycles and cycles in general, when fitted with any kind of accessory motor -- however small -- are included within the same category as other motor vehicles, thereby requiring the operator to register, license and purchase insurance.
This constitutes a significant economic barrier to the use of motorized cycles, thus depriving British Columbians of an environmentally beneficial mode of transportation. In many other jurisdictions, motorized cycles have become very popular because the small, limited-speed electric motor can be intermittently engaged when the rider is fatigued or going up long or steep hills. Motorized cycles also provide another choice for those who don't, or don't wish to, own a private automobile.
The bill establishes the regulatory authority to prescribe the use, capabilities, size, power and weight of motorized cycles, as well as the operator and equipment requirements and restrictions. Riders of motorized cycles will be subject to the same safety-helmet provisions as for bicycles.
These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will bring it more in line with other government initiatives to develop bicycle pathways as viable commuter routes and to encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives to the private automobile as a means of reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's disappointing to hear from the member opposite the same kind of whining and complaining that she did all through estimates
Nonetheless, as the member well knows, there is funding available through the forest recreation portion of FRBC funding, which we access to employ youth through the environment youth teams initiatives. As I explained to the member at great length during estimates, this is subject to review by FRBC staff, and it is consistent with the goals of FRBC.
C. Clark: I guess I should start by thanking the minister for raising the level of debate in this House.
Second, I'd like to point out to her that WC2 isn't the only group that the Premier has declared an enemy of British Columbia that's receiving funding through her ministry. The Sierra Club, which recently called for a decrease in the level of cut on Vancouver Island, is also getting money from Forest Renewal -- the forest renewal fund that's supposed to find work for displaced forest workers.
[ Page 6008 ]
Can the minister tell us if she also supports giving Forest Renewal B.C. money to organizations that are dedicated not to finding work for forest workers in British Columbia but to cutting back the amount of work that's available for them?
[2:15]
Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's unfortunate that the member chooses to attack the many organizations across British Columbia -- including first nations, municipal governments and many non-profit organizations -- which work with us to support objectives for environmental protection and in the employment of youth.However, as the member is aware, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee is one of the successful applicants. They have hired two interns to work on a program around Ayum Creek in Victoria, and they're devoting some time to creating educational material around the Sooke watershed -- a recent announcement that this government made in terms of expanding the protected areas in that area.
The staff of FRBC and our own E-team staff carefully reviewed those applications. The individuals involved -- those youths -- will not be involved, and should not be involved, in any matters of civil disobedience. So I certainly hope the member is assured that the goals of the program will continue to be met.
C. Clark: It is interesting to hear the minister defend this program, when this is a government that has done more to contribute to unemployment for youth in British Columbia than it has to employment.
We now know that the minister is giving FRBC money to pay for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Sierra Club and, we might assume, Greenpeace or other enemies of British Columbia that the Premier has declared war on. Can the minister tell us how funding staff for those groups fits in with the aims and objectives of the Forest Renewal B.C. fund?
Hon. C. McGregor: I notice that the member listens as well in this House as she did in the little House, when I gave answers in the past. I have answered her questions as to how decisions are made. I think it's unfortunate, again, that the member raises points that aren't true. In fact, non-student youth employment was up 8,400 total jobs in June this year compared to a year ago. Clearly we're making major efforts on the part of youth employment, and we're making major progress, as well.
FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES AND
UNION PENSION FUNDS
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll take that question on notice.
T. Nebbeling: At the same board meeting of the Forest Renewal B.C. board, it was decided that guidelines had to be set up to deal with future requests for pension fund assistance. Can the minister tell me today why FRBC is becoming a slush fund for unions? Have other requests for transfers of money to union pension funds been made to Forest Renewal B.C.?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Having taken that request on notice, I will be happy to provide a full response to the member.
STANDARD OF CARE AT
SKELEEM VILLAGE TREATMENT CENTRE
However, the minutes from a June 10 meeting reveal that this facility has grossly violated the Community Care Facility Act. The problems at this facility are obscene. They range from illicit drug use to sexual assault. Even worse, children in the care of the Ministry for Children and Families were sent to this facility. My question is to the Minister of Health: given everything that was going wrong, why did no one from her ministry do the right thing last year and investigate what was going on at Skeleem Village?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have appointed a public administrator, who will be assuming the management of Skeleem Village for the next three months. The medical health officer has been working in the community, investigating the situation there since early June. The licensing officer has made many visits to this facility over the course of the last eight months. There have been concerns raised by the community, and there have been allegations made. The member opposite has listed allegations, and they are allegations at this stage.
Hence I have done three things. I have appointed the public administrator. I have asked the provincial health officer himself to visit the site and work with the ongoing investigation. That has met with a great deal of support from the community. As recently as today, the regional district director, who has been very public around these allegations, has called to say thanks for the very quick action in this area.
But lastly, I made an announcement just a few moments ago -- actually, about an hour ago -- that I'm appointing an independent party to conduct a comprehensive review of all the existing regulatory framework, covering the 5,500 licensed community care facilities throughout the province.
S. Hawkins: The community has lost confidence in this minister's ability to ensure that the standards under her leadership are met. It's the government's job to make sure that these licensed facilities meet minimum standards, not just today but last year as well.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members, please. I want to hear the question. Okanagan West, I'm trying to get you some order. Go ahead.
S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, it's government's responsibility to make sure that these minimum standards are met
The Health ministry's chief licensing officer for the area reveals that she has to monitor over 300 more facilities today but has the same number of staff she had six years ago, when
[ Page 6009 ]
she only had 178 facilities that she was responsible for. She had no idea what went on at Skeleem Village. She can't explain how this facility slipped through the cracks and how it started accepting children under the care of the Ministry for Children and Families.
My question is to the Minister of Health again: with 300 RCMP complaints last year and 129 or more this year, how is it possible that this facility went virtually unnoticed by the Ministry of Health?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I think it's only the opposition that gets up every day, reads their news clips and doesn't bother to investigate what actually is going on. Certainly our government is far away ahead on this issue, but the hon. member wasn't listening. As recently as today, Richard Hughes, the regional district director, called my office to personally thank this government for listening to the community and acting. I'm sure they didn't call the Liberal opposition office to say the same thing about their performance.
Around the issue of the allegations, this is a society that is delivering services to brain-injured, head-injured people. There is no question that there have been allegations made. It is a society that delivers a service outside of an institution. Allegations have been made. They have been investigated by the RCMP; the RCMP continue their ongoing investigation. The licensing officer has made regular visits to that community.
In light of all of that, though, we are still doing this ongoing investigation by the provincial health officer. I also know that the way we deliver community services across this province has changed. People are moving out of institutions and into the community. That's why I've asked for the overall independent review of all of the licensing.
M. Coell: Certainly the government cannot be proud of this facility. At a June 10 meeting regarding this facility, a Ministry of Health official stated that they had "grave concerns about the safety of children in their care." Two officials from the Ministry for Children and Families said they were concerned about the children in the care of this facility.
One official said: "There was an accepted variance of the licensing requirements that allowed children into this facility." My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: could she tell us what kind of variance would allow children in her care to be placed in this facility, which houses recovering drug addicts, adults with violent tendencies and convicted sex offenders?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is an investigation into this matter. I will not make any comments until the outcome of the investigation is fulfilled. But let me just say this to you: the facility's licence to treat children has been voluntarily surrendered by the society. Arrangements have been made to best determine the placement for the remaining two youths in the facility. In the meantime, the youths are in a very secure setting.
M. Coell: There are still children in this facility. Apparently children were being forced to sleep in barns, consorting with an adult sex offender, trading sex for cigarettes and being placed in the adult facility for punishment. Skeleem even offered a summer camp for kids although adults with criminal records were present.
My question is to the Minister for Children and Families, not the Minister of Health: how could the minister send children in her care to this facility? Does she agree that this situation should be turned over to the children's commissioner for a full investigation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition takes allegations and turns them into facts. We have an investigation going on. The medical health officer has been working with the facility since June 10 around allegations that have been made. The medical health officer is doing a full investigation into this. On top of that, the provincial health officer is overseeing the matter completely himself. Our government will actually await the outcome of that investigation.
SUSPENSION OF SPEECH THERAPY
DURING SCHOOL HOLIDAYS
Interjection.
F. Gingell:
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take the question on notice.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
[2:30]
POWER FOR JOBS DEVELOPMENT ACT
(second reading)
At the outset of this administration
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm hearing some yelling from the Peace River country, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the member will want to get into the debate when it's his turn.
We did identify job creation as a fundamental priority of this administration, and this bill will be, increasingly, an integral piece of that job creation strategy. We have followed
[ Page 6010 ]
through on job creation in a number of areas: Fisheries Renewal B.C., the Fish Protection Act, the jobs and timber accord, and other initiatives of government.
One of the key elements that we have here in British Columbia that will, as I say, increasingly play a strategic role in job creation is energy -- electrical power. We committed to introduce legislation to use our abundant supplies of hydroelectricity strategically to attract new investment and create new, decent-paying, family-supporting jobs for British Columbians. The return of the Columbia River downstream power benefits under the Columbia Treaty presents an unparalleled opportunity to realize the potential of our abundant hydro resources. The downstream benefits will be returned in stages, starting next year and reaching 1,400 megawatts in the year 2003. This represents power made available to B.C. at no new cost.
On June 26 the Premier and I were proud to announce our government's Power for Jobs initiative. This legislation sets out the details of that initiative. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that British Columbia's electrical power resources contribute to the creation and retention of jobs throughout our province. It allows British Columbia to provide surplus power, including Columbia River Treaty DSB power, to new industrial plants and to existing plants that plan to increase employment. It provides for a request-for-proposal process, which allows the province to request proposals for the use of power and to select proposals which have the greatest overall economic and social benefit. It is expected that up to 4,250 direct jobs will be generated.
In the first phase of this initiative, 200 megawatts will be available to new investors through the RFP process. The bill also provides for the use of development rate electricity through the Job Protection Commission, to provide assistance to industrial companies facing financial difficulties. It provides for a Power for Jobs administrator to manage requests for proposals and to work with the Job Protection Commission to help industries facing financial difficulties.
As a separate part of the Power for Jobs initiative -- and this is very important to our existing industrial base -- existing industries will have access to an additional 225 megawatts of electricity at market-based rates. The program will be developed with B.C. Hydro and industrial customers over the coming months. This initiative for existing customers will be delivered through B.C. Hydro's real-time pricing. In the past, power discounts have only been available to firms in very restricted situations. Now, with Power for Jobs, new industrial investors as well as existing industrial firms that are expanding, creating and preserving jobs may be eligible for power at reduced rates.
I want to emphasize that this initiative does not require access to any of the power that British Columbians currently need. Power for Jobs will use surplus power to achieve our objective: our job creation and economic development goals. We are very fortunate in British Columbia to have access to valuable hydroelectric resources. This abundant supply of power provides a comparative advantage, and we must take advantage of that.
Starting next year, Columbia River Treaty DSBs begin to revert to provincial control. This creates an opportunity to use the province's hydroelectricity to generate jobs and new industrial activity in British Columbia. Industries such as mineral extraction and processing, forestry, electrochemicals and science and technology will be the primary focus of Power for Jobs. These industries will be attracted to Power for Jobs because they are energy-intensive; their energy costs represent a fairly big part of their overall costs.
Mining and smelting firms, value-added wood, pulp and paper manufacturers, scientific research and development and large mineral smelting operations all require secure, low-cost power to be competitive. By providing access for firms throughout the province, Power for Jobs will attract secondary industrial investment that spurs regional economic growth.
We have met with the industry, and they are very positive. The existing industrial base is very positive on this. Members know that there are firms from outside British Columbia that are also investigating the potential to locate large industrial enterprises in our province. It's going to be critical in the future.
As I say, we have a comparative and a competitive advantage in terms of the 1,400 megawatts of power that will be returned to British Columbians, and I'm confident that both members of the opposition and British Columbians in general will approve of the primary thrust of this legislation, which is to use that energy entitlement to try to create new jobs and new economic opportunities here in our province.
I move second reading of Bill 50.
G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly I think all British Columbians would agree that the best use of the downstream benefits would be to create good long-term, lasting new jobs for British Columbians. I think where the government and the opposition diverge, however, occurs shortly thereafter. I don't believe that this plan, this Bill 50, will achieve that. In fact, I think there is a far better way for the government to achieve long-term, lasting, good family-supporting jobs with our natural resources.
The minister and I had a somewhat protracted debate on this issue in his estimates at the time that this project was announced and this bill was tabled in the House. Our estimates were taking place in the committee room, and we had a debate on it at that time. It became very clear that there is a difference of opinion and a difference in philosophy on how the energy sector in British Columbia should be used. It became clear that the government seems to be stuck in a 1960s model of economic development, where the government goes in and picks winners and losers, where the government controls the means of production -- in this case, energy -- and doles it out according to its wishes, according to its intents, according to its plan.
Certainly Bill 50 allows the government to go into the various sectors of the economy that rely upon large amounts of power and pick either new or existing companies and give to them a special privilege -- the privilege of being entitled to purchase power at market rates. Now, the key words there are "market rates," because they underlie the whole problem with the government's energy policy over the last number of years. The government has a plan -- or says it has a plan -- to develop the various regions of this province. They have an economic development plan, and this power deal is part of it.
The reality is that over the last five years or so, the energy sector has undergone some extremely rapid and probably permanent changes -- certainly in the mid- to long term -- that will have a big impact on the value of British Columbia's assets and our ability to sell them internationally. At a time when every other jurisdiction in North America is moving to more competitive, more market-based energy policy, when the energy sector is being deregulated and various independent producers are now getting access to the various grids and are able to sell their power directly to industrial customers, British Columbia has refused to recognize the change that has taken place in North America and relate that
[ Page 6011 ]
to what goes on here in British Columbia. While on the one hand we are trying to participate in that new and opening market by selling our surplus power to industrial users in the American market, British Columbia continues to have an internal monopoly with regard to the supply of power. B.C. Hydro has protected that monopoly with a vengeance. Indeed, what has happened is that while other jurisdictions and other producers around North America are benefiting from market rate power or cheaper power because of technological advances and because of deregulation, industries in British Columbia have not been able to do that. As a result, our industries here in this province have been put at an economic disadvantage, as opposed to their former position where they had an economic advantage because of our huge power assets in B.C.
The minister, in his moving of second reading, stated something to the effect -- and I'm paraphrasing -- of industries needing market price power in order to be competitive. I agree with him. I probably agree with him more than he agrees with himself, because I believe that all industries in British Columbia -- small businesses and large businesses, whether they consume 35 megawatts or not -- should be entitled to access market rate power. It's time B.C. Hydro got its act together, and it's time the government of British Columbia got its act together to ensure that because of our desire to raid B.C. Hydro of substantial dividends in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars a year going into general revenue, we don't put our industries at an economic disadvantage over the long term.
We had a deal taking place that was found out -- unfortunately or fortunately, I suppose; whatever way you want to look at it -- between B.C. Hydro and Intalco in the United States. At a time when the minister stood up in this House and said that we need, that industries need and that the province needs a competitive market rate for power in order to be competitive, B.C. Hydro was selling cheap power to an aluminum producer in Washington State at a price that was almost half of what our industrial consumers were paying here in British Columbia. It puts our businesses, our communities and our workers at an extreme economic disadvantage.
What the government should be doing is using the huge assets we have in British Columbia -- namely, our hydroelectricity, our dams and our ability to generate and store vast amounts of power -- to sell that power when the market is high, and save and store that power in these big batteries called reservoirs at times when power prices are low. We have a huge geographical and geological advantage as far as the hydro and electrical industry goes in North America, because we have those dams that we can draw upon.
But instead of having British Columbia lead the way in market reform, change and deregulation with regard to the energy sector, we have been following. Instead of having us out there reforming the way we do things in British Columbia, putting us at a competitive advantage, and using those inherent competitive advantages we have and turning them into long-term competitive advantages, we've chosen to stick our head in the sand and ignore them. The reason this government has chosen to do that is because of the vast amount of money that they have been able to draw out of B.C. Hydro in the form of dividends: almost a billion dollars has gone out of B.C. Hydro into general revenue and been spent since they were elected in 1991.
I agree with the minister that in order to have a competitive economy, to have competitive sectors in the pulp, mining and forest industries -- and other businesses, for that matter -- we need to have power available to us that's the same price as or, hopefully, less than the price of power that is available to our competitors across the border in the United States and, ever more importantly, across the border in Alberta and other parts of Canada. But instead, because of the government's desire to avoid opening up the market in order to protect their revenue sources, we find ourselves at the end of the line with regard to change in the energy sector, instead of at the front of the line leading it.
I was really confused, because I got a call last week from a reporter in Toronto about an advertisement that had been placed in the Globe and Mail. I have a copy of it and I also have a copy of the actual ad itself. It sort of surprised me, because we have the minister up here today saying: "We are going to use the Columbia downstream benefits to provide cheap power to selected businesses in order to make them competitive and in order to enable them to create new jobs -- preferably long-lasting new jobs -- in this province." But at the same time, the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation were putting out requests for proposals to build a 150-megawatt power plant at the Keenleyside Dam on the Columbia River near Castlegar. The interesting thing is that it's going to be a partially funded dam. These companies put out a bid. The companies come back and say, "We can build this project, we can produce this many jobs, we can produce this much power at this price," and the government is going to give them some money -- some partially funded -- on top of the capital that those companies will bring themselves to produce this dam, and then we'll have some more power.
[2:45]
The problem is that all of the economic analyses of the project at the Keenleyside Dam that have been done by the government in their intention to do this project previously showed that the power we would obtain from it would be simply economically unviable -- i.e., we would produce the power and it would cost us more to produce it than we could get by selling it.So I suspect that what the government is going to do -- and it's quite clear, in fact, from the ad in the paper and from the project as it is listed on the Internet -- is take money from the Columbia River downstream benefits, put it into the Columbia Basin Trust, and the money in the Columbia Basin Trust is then going to be used to build this project that is going to be economically unviable. So on the one hand we're using the Columbia downstream benefits to offer cheap power to make our businesses competitive with the rest of North America, and on the other hand, at the same time, we're going to be using the Columbia downstream benefits to produce more surplus power that's so expensive we can't even sell it.
How does the government reconcile those two? Why put money into a project to make power cheap and more readily available to industries in the province at the same time as you're putting money from the same source into building a project that's going to produce expensive power that none of those industries will be able to buy? I would love to hear the minister explain that when he sums up and closes debate on second reading, because the two just don't work. There's no way that you can
What the government should be doing, and what it should have been doing for the last number of years, is sitting down, thinking long-term, looking at what the future holds
[ Page 6012 ]
for the province of British Columbia, and looking at what the future holds for the various industries here and what we require to make sure that they are competitive with our competitors. One of the biggest costs of production to something like an aluminum smelter, a mining processing place, a mill or the pulp sector is an availability of power. If we're paying more for that large cost of production than our competitors are, then we're at an economic disadvantage. I think the minister agrees with that.
What the government should be doing is sitting down and looking at the energy sector long-term, realizing what is happening around the globe and around North America -- that in fact new technologies, new means of producing electricity, new means of producing power are coming on line all the time -- and trying to get ahead of that, opening up our grids to competition within British Columbia itself, and allowing us to use those huge economic and geographical resources we have in dams to make profit for the province of British Columbia but also to put our businesses here on an equal footing with our competitors across North America and, quite frankly, around the globe.
The question arises: why has the government chosen not to do that? In fact, at every step of the way the government has avoided dealing with that issue. The government has tried to sell our power internationally through Powerex, to bring it into markets
You saw the jobs-for-youth
We have to fight in order to get this project through, which probably, unfortunately, is a reaction under NAFTA from the Americans -- from the competitors in the United States under NAFTA, possibly changes and challenges under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States. There are huge obstacles before this deal ever comes to fruition, and I suspect that the Premier and the minister know that. I think what they've got here is: let's take some of the downstream benefits, and let's see how we can turn it into television ads -- because that's what it seems to be. All you have to do at home at night is turn on the television, and you can see the government's latest projects -- latest proposals, latest scams, latest schemes -- appearing on television in the form of ads. We've got the jobs and timber accord ads; we've got the jobs-for-youth ads. We're losing jobs, not gaining jobs, but they're still running the TV ads.
I suspect that this is an opportunity for the government to go out there and talk about creating new jobs. They throw numbers around like nothing. The minister said something over 4,000 jobs for this program. I suspect we'll never see them. I don't believe this government really believes that in the next two or three years it's going to be able to actually put any project on line that's going to produce new jobs for British Columbians, because of the opposition this is likely to find from other jurisdictions and because of the fact that the program simply won't work.
I've looked at the clips ever since this announcement was made. The Premier goes into these communities and says: "Gee, you know, we've got this cheap-power-for-jobs deal, and I think somebody might just like to build a smelter in your community." Then he goes to another community and says the same thing, and he goes to another community and says the same thing. I think there are now four different communities in British Columbia that all think they're going to get this new aluminum smelter.
It's great politics, because you can go out there and feed the people in those communities false hope -- a sense that there's going to be some big project come and revitalize the economy in their area, which has been so devastated by the economic and taxation policies of this government over the last six or seven years. So the minister and the Premier will go in, and the MLAs will travel around their communities and tell people about the wonderful things that are going to happen because of this jobs-for-cheap-power deal. And it's not going to happen. They're going to be disappointed again, just like they were during the election campaign when the Premier went around this province, went into just about every community and told them they were going to get a school or they were going to get a hospital or they were going to get new money for this or a cancer clinic in their community, something else in this community, only to find after the election that the government had no intention of following through on those commitments and in fact had no intention of following through on them on the very day they were made.
I suspect that the same thing is likely to happen with this deal -- that the government and the ministers will go around, the backbenchers will go around
I think it's time the government started to realize what's happening in the energy sector, be prepared for it and lead the way rather than follow -- put B.C. Hydro in an economic position where it can get out there and aggressively compete internationally in the United States, in Mexico, in the rest of Canada -- so that B.C. Hydro becomes a leader in the energy field instead of a follower, as it is now as far as deregulation goes.
I think it's time the government set their politics and their press release clip-, television ad-based policy development aside and started to realize that they should stop playing with our largest Crown corporation. They should stop playing with the legacy of British Columbia. They should stop playing with the Columbia downstream benefits and start leading with the Columbia downstream benefits. It's time we had policy that was meant to actually achieve something. It's time we had direction that was actually geared towards long-term sustainable jobs and towards putting this province in a position of economic advantage instead of one of decline.
I hope that the government and the Premier will actually produce something out of this that will last and that will make sense. I'm not very optimistic about it, given the track record. I suspect that it's nothing more than a political gesture by the government to have some announcements, to make promises,
[ Page 6013 ]
to spread false hope yet again amongst the resource communities of this province, only to find that there really was no intent of following through on it.
So I hope the government rethinks this. I wish they would take a longer-term approach to B.C. Hydro. I wish they would do what's right for British Columbians instead of just what's right for the Premier in the opinion polls, and start to lead this province.
G. Wilson: I don't intend to speak for very long on this matter, but I do think there are several aspects that need to be put on the record. I would say that Bill 50 is a very interesting method of amending the way that power rates will be established and applied through a process of public policy decisions taken by the government -- an attempt, at least, to provide affordable, competitive power to those companies who wish to invest in the province of British Columbia and expand our investment base. To that extent, I think it's a bold initiative, and it's one that I certainly hope will work.
I think that the government has come forward at a time when we need to address two or three critical issues around the whole proposition of power development and power provision in the province. I say so, because we are increasingly under international regulation or international treaty, being more and more confined and restricted in terms of what we are able to do with respect to putting in place competitive market rates with respect to our utilities. B.C. Hydro, of course, being a government-sponsored Crown corporation which holds a monopoly status to a degree, is one that is going to be subjected to some of these new international agreements.
So this is a bold initiative, and a rather innovative one that I hope works. To the extent that we in British Columbia can come together behind it and work to make sure that these rates apply in an equitable and fair way and actually diversify the economy -- especially diversify the economy into the rural regions of the province where we have industries that are currently the single industry in many communities -- I think that that will be worthwhile.
I don't share the Liberal critic's pessimism about the possibility of new investments in British Columbia with respect to whether it's an aluminum smelter or whatever it may be. It seems to me that we have to act now to try and provide investment opportunities to make British Columbia a desirable place for people to put their capital. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that we secure the most competitive power rates anywhere in North America. B.C. Hydro currently provides that, and I think that Bill 50 provides an opportunity for us to be able to maintain that.
Where we're going to have to put our shoulder to the wheel, and where we're going to have to unite and come together and stand in a somewhat united force, is when we are challenged. We may well be challenged through trade tribunals with respect to the FTA and NAFTA provisions and, more specifically, if we ever get to sign the MAI -- the multilateral agreement on investment which we've talked about in this House -- on how that agreement may in fact challenge the right of government to maintain a government monopoly power provider such as B.C. Hydro.
At that point, as British Columbians, I think we have to stand united in our resolve to make sure that we do not acquiesce, that we do not yield to those pressures. It seems to me that once we start to allow the erosion of our control over power generation -- more particularly over power transmission -- we are going to find ourselves in some serious difficulty. I think that the difficulty we have had in finalizing agreements with respect to downstream benefits and how those benefits are to be applied
So let me say, in conclusion to my remarks on this, that I think this is a very interesting and very innovative way of trying to tackle what is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and that is the problem of being able to allow government to act as an authority that will be able to maintain and establish some level of control over the supply of electricity for domestic consumers at competitive rates.
Frankly, I think that the government is to be congratulated for this approach. I'm not certain it's going to work; I'd like to see it work. When we get into committee stage, perhaps we can flesh out, in particular, the jobs administrator's role a little bit more so we can see specifically how that application can take place.
But for now, we would have to support it, I think -- and we should support it. I think that this is an initiative that may very well translate into a diversified economy and therefore jobs in parts of British Columbia that seem to be threatened right now as single industries are diminishing and are looking toward increased investment.
With that, hon. Speaker, I'll take my seat. I look forward to the minister's conclusions, and I particularly look forward to committee stage, where we can flesh out in a little bit more detail how this is going to work.
[3:00]
D. Jarvis: I am rising to talk to the second reading of Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act. Basically, this bill is the government's wish to create jobs with the use of cheaper power for people in industry in British Columbia. The minister did mention the fact that he hoped that the opposition would approve their primary thrust. We do all agree with the primary thrust, and that is to see more jobs, more development and more wealth created in British Columbia. We're all for that, and we always have been for that.We are the first ones to stand in line behind the government to make sure that we have strong, happy communities in this province where people can see career jobs that will last over the years and not the way we are going now. We are seeing close to 10 percent unemployment, and we've got about 7 percent on the welfare rolls. God knows what the percentage would be of the people that do not qualify for welfare or unemployment insurance. There's probably a large percentage out there.
I look at this bill and I see, as the minister said, that its main thrust is to attempt to create jobs and also to lock in existing customers to buy into the thoughts of cheaper rates -- also, the fact that this bill is probably somewhat of an excuse for amending the botched job they did on the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits several years ago.
Is this bill innovative? Perhaps it is, to a certain extent, but over the long run I have quite a few regrets as to the ability of this government to produce an innovative way of creating
[ Page 6014 ]
jobs. We know what their history has been with jobs. They have said that they're going to create so many jobs, and they don't create so many jobs. It's always a continuing
We've gone through the past six years of this government using Hydro as sort of a cash cow -- as a very monolithic cash cow.
Now the Premier is again attempting to convince the people that he is the great benefactor and that he is the great creator of more jobs. We know his track record; history shows us. His track record is abysmal as far as creating jobs in this province. The Premier was responsible for Hydro way back as early as '91. He used it as a cash cow then. He used it to help him try to balance the start of his deficit budgeting in this province, when he was also the Finance minister. In fact, I think he took approximately $900 million out of Hydro in those days and put it into the government's general coffers. There was no benefit to the industry or to the people.
He attempted to deny the BCUC in every initiative they had towards deregulation. He increased the commercial usage of power, the cost of power to industry throughout this province. Hydro's debt at that time went up over $800 million, and now he says that he wishes to create the Power for Jobs Development Act -- Bill 50 in front of us -- and like he usually does, he sets his sights on something without any plans or really any thought toward the people whose livelihoods depend on these decisions he's making.
Fundamental jobs -- great, we're all in favour of that. We think that jobs should be created out of the assets that British Columbia has. Hydro exports and power are being exported cheaper than
You know, we look at the mining industry and the forestry industry and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars they pay for electricity. Highland Valley pays way in excess of $600 million a year in hydro rates. Fletcher Challenge, one of the big forestry companies, has close to a billion dollars in costs that they pay for power. Now, how can they stay competitive and keep existing jobs if they have to pay those excessive power rates?
The Premier said prior to the last election that he was going to freeze hydro rates. Well, in actual fact he did freeze hydro rates, but he froze hydro rates up. The rest of North America and Canada were deregulating. Nearly all the major areas -- industrial countries in the world -- were deregulating. Power was going down. The cost of power was going down for everyone, but the Premier froze them up because he was using Hydro and the money out of Hydro to help balance his budget.
We have told this government -- we started telling them back in '92 -- that it was time for deregulation, that the market for power generation and sales was changing all across North America. The cost of power was screaming down. It was becoming a marketable item on the stock exchange. This government refused to accept that fact, and even when it was presented to the B.C. Utilities Commission, this government stopped them from holding deregulation hearings on it. They have now changed their mind on that. However, as I said, this government refused to accept the fact that market-rate power was out there. We had companies that wanted to start cogeneration plants throughout this province. They've been lined up for years and years and years, since way back in the late eighties when the thoughts first came forward and it was approved by the previous government. Then in '91 this government shut down all the companies that were trying to put cheaper power into this province through cogeneration. When you talk about cogeneration, basically they wanted to create some power to run their own industry cheaper. Whatever excess they then had, they would put onto the grid.
B.C. Hydro would not allow them. They made it so impossible for them to do so that it became prohibitive costwise. Therefore we'd see B.C. gas taken out of northern B.C., travelling all the way down through British Columbia, where a plant wanted to use it for dry-kiln lumber purposes. It was unable to build a plant in British Columbia where, first of all, the building of a plant would have created jobs and then the running of the plant would have created jobs. That went across the border into the state of Washington, to dry-kiln B.C. lumber. They got the jobs, and they got the profits. That's the way this government runs B.C. Hydro and runs its job creation.
We have to be competitive. If we're not competitive with cheaper power, we will not survive in the years to come. As I said, the cost of power is going down all across North America. If this government does not create a situation in which our existing industry is able to compete, then we'll lose jobs on that end.
The basic thrust of this bill is good. Everyone agrees with it. But the track record of this government is bad -- really bad -- so we find it very, very difficult to support. Bill 50 is supposed to created jobs; I hope it does. But I worry about the existing industry and how they're going to be treated. Are they going to get a break? Or is it just a select few that are going to get a break, so they can show how wonderful a job they are doing? Will this government fall into the old pattern that it always did before and create more for export purposes, revenue that will go into general funds to help them balance? Or are they really concerned about industry and jobs in this province?
On that premise, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am theoretically in favour of this bill. I would be hypocritical if I said I could support it, on the premise of what this government has done in the past. We will wait for committee stage and see what they will do at that point, when we will have a further opportunity to question them as to what they are actually going to do. At this time I have to say that I cannot support the minister in his bill. We hope he will change his mind, and we will look into it further.
C. Hansen: When the minister started his second reading speech about this bill today, he referred to the job creation strategy of this provincial government. I was surprised that he would trot out that line. Only a few weeks ago, in the estimates debate on the spending of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, it became painfully clear that this minister has never been involved in the development of a job strategy for this government, that we have a Minister of Employment and Investment who has had no hand in the development of a
[ Page 6015 ]
job strategy. Yet we've had grandiose promises in years gone by, in election campaigns, that there would be a job creation strategy for this province. Instead, what we see is a whole bunch of micromanaged projects that are really designed to try to make the Premier look good but do nothing to build a solid, stable economy in British Columbia.
Quite frankly, the job creation record of this government is a total failure. When they talk about job creation in this province, they reach back to years gone by to try to show that they have a successful job creation record. The facts are unequivocal. In 1997 we have a net decline of 10,000 in the number of jobs in this province. Earlier this year we had a Minister of Finance who stood up in this House and said that his budget was going to create 40,000 new jobs for British Columbia in 1997. So far we're halfway through the year, and the numbers in the labour force survey tell the story. The numbers in the labour force survey show that we are down 10,000 jobs since January. If this government is going to meet its commitment of 40,000 new jobs, it has to create 50,000 new jobs in the next six months.
What we have seen from this government is that they haven't got the foggiest clue of how to do that. They're going out with small projects -- like jobs for timber, for example. They're saying: "We're going to go in and micromanage this. We're going to dish out a little bit of money here and a little bit of money there. We're going to browbeat these companies, and out of this whole process there are going to be jobs created." That's not how you create jobs in an economy.
Now we have another example. We've got something called Power for Jobs, which is another example of this government trying to come in and micromanage the economy. We've got a Premier who wants to cut deals. It's understandable. He came out of the trade union movement, as did most of the cabinet, most of the NDP caucus, where they went in to negotiate these things. They went in to negotiate: "If we give you a little bit here, will you give us a little bit there?" That's not the way you build an economy.
I harken back to my first-year economics class, where we went into the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Microeconomics is the theory of the firm. What is it that makes a particular company profitable or not profitable? Macroeconomics is the power that the economy as a whole has, and it is the power that governments have to drive an economy. We have a government that's living in a microeconomic world, which thinks that that's how government creates jobs.
[3:15]
In the Power for Jobs bill that's before us, we have something called a Power for Jobs administrator. This new Power for Jobs czar reminds me of the jobs-for-timber czar that we have, somebody who's going to be standing there pulling all the strings while the Premier is pulling his strings, while Ken Georgetti is, in turn, pulling the strings of the Premier. There's a lot of string there, and it's going to tend to tie them all in knots before too long. But I have a vision of this Power for Jobs czar, who's going to be doing the central planning for this government when it comes to economic development.Remember a few months ago? There was a big controversy about the uniforms, the subsidized clothing for the Ministry of Forests employees. I was thinking that with all of the work that this government is giving to PR firms to try to prop up its public image, they should give one of those PR firms the job of designing a uniform for this Jobs for Power czar. There's a couple of images that they might play with. One is the image of Zeus. They could dress this guy -- or woman, depending on who it is -- in a toga. They could give him the two lightning bolts in each hand. As companies come from around the world to the Premier's Office, they're going to come on bended knee and say: "Please, Mr. Administrator, will you give us some power for this big company that we want to create in British Columbia -- this smelter, this manufacturing plant?" This Jobs for Power czar is going to take his lightning bolt, and he's going to anoint these companies.
With the economic environment that this government has created in British Columbia, those companies are not coming to this province on bended knee. There is lots of opportunity around this world. If we don't create an environment that's going to be conducive to those companies coming here because of the economic climate, they're not going to come here on bended knee asking for power from this government, which is going to go through some order-in-council, some cabinet decree that says: "Yes, Mr. Investor, we're going to give you some power if you create some jobs."
I have no doubt that there will be some announcements made of how jobs are being created with this particular piece of legislation, this piecemeal handing out of electricity. There will be announcements. There will be companies that will come in and take you up on the offer of cheap power.
The question that remains is: how many companies are passing by this province today? If you start looking at the investment record in British Columbia that this government has created, it's not a very pretty sight. Last year the Canadian average was a 6.1 percent increase; 6.1 percent of GDP was going to plant and equipment across Canada. It wasn't too long ago that British Columbia used to be the leader when it came to new investment, job-creating investment. Last year in British Columbia the number was 4.3 percent of GDP. This 4.3 percent of GDP was the amount that reflected new investment in plant and equipment. For every dollar that's not invested in plant and equipment in British Columbia, jobs
You know, it's not good enough for us to be matching the national average in Canada when it comes to economic growth -- the dynamic economy. British Columbia should be number one. I think every British Columbian remembers when British Columbia was number one in economic growth per capita. You know what it is today? Of the 12 jurisdictions in Canada, British Columbia is number ten when it comes to economic growth per capita. This government has to be accountable for that record.
The reason we have that kind of a record today is because they have tried to micromanage the economy. They have tried to create jobs by advertising agencies, and it doesn't work that way. What we need is a government that's going to be committed to changing the economic climate in this province, a government that's going to create openness. Governments can be inviting to industries that want to come into British Columbia to create jobs and invest. If they get the feeling, which they do today, that they've got to come to this government on bended knee and beg for power -- that they've got to beg for approvals here, approvals there -- that's the kind of thing where many companies are going to say: "Thanks, but no thanks. We're going to go somewhere else, where our investment and our jobs are going to be welcome."
If you start looking at our neighbour to the east, Alberta
[ Page 6016 ]
British Columbia on a per capita basis -- in fact, $2,000 per person more in Alberta than in British Columbia. We're starting to pay the price. If you look at our investments, our exports
Quite frankly, I believe that Bill 50 does more harm than good, for the very reason that it tries to micromanage everything that happens in this province. I ask that the government reconsider this bill, reconsider the approach and try to create an environment where jobs will be created and investment will be attracted. It would be a refreshing change from what we have seen over the last six years.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister, whose comments will close second reading debate.
Hon. D. Miller: I did listen to most of what the members opposite had to say relative to the bill. I guess if I could identify, stripping away the rhetoric which is all too often a part of
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Occasionally even I use that device.
Let me try to frame the issue here, because I think that my own sense is that this is a bill that all members should be able to support. Its premise is very simple. We have, as part of our obligation
Now, under the provisions of the treaty, the power reverts back to British Columbia. We initially negotiated an agreement with Bonneville that fell through; Bonneville reneged on that. We went back to the table, and these are the results of that set of negotiations, which I think, over the long haul, are at least comparable in their economic value. The power under the previous agreement would have been returned at Oliver. The power under this agreement -- at least 1,100 megawatts -- will be returned at Blaine. There will be no cost. There will be no transmission cost -- no loss for that power which will be returned to the Canada-U.S. border at Blaine.
So here we are in a world that's very, very competitive, where other jurisdictions compete for the same types of industries and businesses that we do, and in pursuing that they use all of the devices that you can imagine. They offer free land; they offer huge tax discounts. And to some degree there's a warning in that: it's a bit of a mug's game. It's a race to the bottom, because all we end up doing is spending money in one form or another. There's no such thing as free land; there's a cost that has to be paid. There's no such thing as a free tax discount; somebody has to pick up that cost. So we look and we examine British Columbia and say: "What are our advantages? What do we have here in B.C. that others might not have?" Well, we have 1,400 megawatts of firm electrical power that we can use in a focused way to create jobs in our province.
And I think this is really the parting point
We quite rightly should be saying
That means you have to be very focused, and you have to negotiate with those companies, because we don't want to give this power away on some empty promise. We want to have a fixed agreement that whoever is going to access it will in fact provide those jobs.
Secondly, we are offering a limited amount of that firm power to our existing industrial customers -- the pulp mills, the mines, forest products plants -- who rightly are saying: "The world is changing. More and more jurisdictions are opening up their previously regulated energy environments to a more market-based system." Therefore, recognizing that we are in a process where Dr. Jaccard is examining that and will report back to me as the minister and to government, we made a determination that our existing industrial customers ought to be able to access some of that power. And in fact, I was delighted, when we made the announcement, that Mr. Apsey from the Council of Forest Industries and people from, I think, Highland Valley Copper and the Mining Association -- Gary Livingstone -- stood on the stage with us and said: "We agree; we concur with the thrust of the government's actions here."
Finally, we're saying that as we work with companies in distress -- companies that might have fallen on hard times for whatever reason
So I would really urge
[ Page 6017 ]
members to consider that, because this is our entitlement. This is British Columbia's entitlement, these 1,400 megawatts. I think that the simple notion the government is putting forward -- let's try to use that electrical energy to create jobs here -- is unassailable. I would be surprised if, at the end of the day, any member stood and voted against this piece of legislation, notwithstanding that there are genuine criticisms that might arise on particular points. So I do look forward to committee stage.
Having said that, I would move second reading.
Second reading of Bill 50 approved on division.
Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[3:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 19.[G. Brewin in the chair.]
FISHERIES RENEWAL ACT
(second reading)
Hon. C. Evans: This legislation will create Fisheries Renewal B.C., a new agency which we hope will renew our fisheries and enhance the fish, fisheries and fish habitat in fish-dependent communities. The Fisheries Renewal Act and the Fish Protection Act are key components of the B.C. fisheries strategy that the Premier, the Minister of Environment and I released to all members and to the general public on May 2.
That strategy was intended to lay out for all folks the B.C. vision on the rebuilding of the west coast fishing industry. It's based precisely on three goals: first is the protection of fish stocks and fish habitat; second is the creation of sustainable jobs, jobs that will last in communities all up and down the coast; and third is to find a mechanism to fully involve British Columbians in that process.
Hon. Speaker, you'll remember a lot of the rancour that we've been through in the last couple of years with the federal government, the Mifflin plan and the like. We heard over and over again that what was broken was the relationship of the people to the resource. Fisheries Renewal is intended to put us through a healing process to, if you will, mend that broken relationship somewhat by engaging the people themselves in the solutions.
On April 16 the Premier and the Prime Minister signed an agreement on management of Pacific salmon fisheries issues, making it clear that to this government the Pacific fishery is a sunrise and not a sunset industry. This bill is the next important step in building on that agreement with Canada to restore hope and jobs in coastal communities.
Investments by Fisheries Renewal B.C. will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the resource, end this mindset of everybody out to catch the last fish and hopefully put that sense of hope back into community development.
Priorities for the new agency will be set not by policy-makers somewhere in a different room or different level of government but by the board of directors themselves. There will be a place at that table for communities, for first nations and for the various groups with a keen interest in the health of the B.C. fish stocks. The agency will be efficient, employing only a small administration team with strictly limited non-program--related spending.
Fisheries Renewal B.C. will be streamlined, largely in order to respond quickly to the needs of fishing communities. There has been a feeling in the last few years, I think, of relative impotence in government at all levels, as people have essentially cried for help at the speed of change and the devastation that they've experienced. We have been lacking in tools to address that cry for help, and Fisheries Renewal, we hope, will fill that vacuum.
We have another hope for Fisheries Renewal B.C. We can assure members of this House and the general public that stakeholders in communities and this government will participate, but we are structuring this legislation precisely in order to create a seat for the federal government, should they choose at some point to change the way they relate to the province of British Columbia and fishing people and communities and take that seat and assist us in fishery renewal.
The initial funding of $22.7 million will be provided by Forest Renewal B.C. It will be applied over the next three years to a range of different programs and projects related to fishery renewal. Everybody here, I think, recognizes that past logging practices have had a major -- perhaps the major -- impact on salmon stocks, so we think it is reasonable to apply a pool of capital accrued by an industry with some culpability in the need for fishery renewal to kick-start the fund that will sustain the agency.
Funding from Forest Renewal will eventually be complemented by revenue from other sources, after consultation with what is in vogue today to refer to as stakeholders. I hope funding will also be forthcoming from the federal government should they choose to take their seat at the table.
Last year at about this time, the Premier of British Columbia introduced the fishery renewal concept, largely in response to the Mifflin plan and the other rapid changes that we were experiencing in federal fisheries policy. A whole lot has happened in the 12 months since. B.C. entered formal discussions with the federal government on the fisheries responsibilities of the two governments and on the impacts of the Mifflin plan itself. That process led to a signing on April 16 of an agreement on the management of Pacific salmon fishery issues, which I personally believe is a major breakthrough in Canada and is certainly the beginning of a new era -- or an opportunity to begin a new era -- of cooperation, federally and provincially, in British Columbia.
In addition, we have reached agreement with stakeholders and with the federal government on a new management regime for the groundfish fishery, which, when we announced this bill initially, I held up as an example of the kind of dialogue that we hoped would work federally, provincially and with the fishing community itself. Then we announced the B.C. Fisheries Strategy and really presented for the world the broadest vision of where the provincial government was heading on fisheries issues. Now this legislation, when we get it passed, will create Fisheries Renewal B.C. and establish the effective partnerships between all of the groups and agencies that are required to make that vision come true.
The people of British Columbia have been somewhat denigrated on the fisheries issue by agencies like the Globe and Mail and sometimes other levels of government. I remember once being accused of promoting a "social" fishery, as opposed to the efficient fishery that the federal government espoused.
[ Page 6018 ]
I think all of the participants in the industry want to have an opportunity to participate in ending the mind-set that stigmatizes the fishing industry as somehow being dependent on a handout from the federal government. Fisheries Renewal will provide them with that opportunity. We will be joined at the table by first nations, local governments, non-governmental organizations with some experience in fisheries issues, and community groups and/or individuals with knowledge in the fishery, fish habitat and fish sectors.
The types of strategic investments in the fisheries that we will make will be wide and varied. Remember here that we're talking about all fisheries, not just salmon. The agency may join fishery sectors and communities in projects that will protect and enhance streams and other fish habitat; add variety and value to B.C. seafood products, enhancing our market opportunities around the world; support recreational fishing initiatives; develop sustainable fishing practices; promote fisheries workforce skills and professionalization; and work with communities to develop fisheries job creation and infrastructure plans.
Fisheries Renewal B.C. will also provide assistance and advice to the province with respect to coordinating and delivering fishery-related programs. The new agency will respect the rights of aboriginal communities. Initiatives carried out by Fisheries Renewal B.C. must take into account the interests of first nations and aboriginal people in the fisheries resource, and I have made that commitment myself on numerous occasions. Aboriginal communities have expressed an eagerness to form partnerships that result in better management and protection of fish, shellfish and marine plant habitat. This legislation will assist those partnerships to actually move forward.
The Fisheries Renewal Act will help British Columbians keep a close watch over the actions of the corporation. The board will be required to publish a business plan prior to each fiscal year. The business plan will detail the agency's revenue stream and expenditure proposals and include a statement of assets and liabilities and any other information that may be required. Along with the business plan, Fisheries Renewal will produce an annual report and a full financial statement of activities carried out each fiscal year.
To further ensure public accountability, though, the Fisheries Renewal board will be required to hold an annual public meeting to provide information about the agency. Hon. members opposite, folks in the gallery and people in British Columbia generally may wish to attend that annual meeting in order to be assured that the money is being spent in their interest and in an utterly accountable fashion.
In conclusion, the Fisheries Renewal Act offers hope for our fishery, and I think all members would agree. It forms the basis of a sustainable future for both the resource and the communities dependent on the resource. It gives stakeholders a direct role in determining the course of public investment in habitat restoration and protection, industry development and long-term economic planning. Fisheries Renewal British Columbia will help build positive working relationships among government, first nations and fishery stakeholders and communities. This legislation is part of a comprehensive provincial strategy, often discussed in this room, to put fisheries on the right course for all time.
I actually think it's time that British Columbians learn to pull together to protect this vital habitat and sport fishery workers and their families. I hope this debate will be the beginning of that pulling together. If we pass this bill, put this board in place and fund it, I think we can accomplish some great things for fish, for people and for change, and I hope that all members feel the same way.
I remember discussing this very subject in the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast's riding some months back. One of the people in the room said: "Well, it's all very well and good for you to invest in having more fish. But why bother, if we can't guarantee that British Columbians can catch the fish? In the absence of a Pacific Salmon Treaty that works, why do fishery renewal?" I thought it was a really good question at the time, and it's a good question today.
Members opposite might ask: "Why bother to put forward this level of energy while our relationship with the United States over who gets to catch these fish is so terribly broken?" I would answer that question by saying our greatest weapon in the debate with the United States is our commitment to fish, our commitment that this is not about who gets to steal whose wealth. This is about the commitment of the people of British Columbia to literally turn around a century of exploitation and invest in sustainability and then, on the treaty front, to guarantee our opportunity to catch the fish that we raise here in British Columbia. I don't see the slightest contradiction on going forward in parallel lines: on the one hand to raise fish, and on the other hand to protect our rights, internationally, to catch them. I hope all members agree, and I look forward to the debate.
[3:45]
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this second reading debate of Bill 19, the Fisheries Renewal Act.First of all, some general comments. We think that in principle this bill has potential, but we say that with significant reservation about the lack of focus in the broad mandate, and, I think, particular reservation in terms of the structure and mandate of the board itself.
As I look into agriculture in our province, I see precedents for this type of structure. I see it specifically, for example, in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which was a similar vehicle established by government to achieve a specific purpose. In the case of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, the purpose was to modernize the tree fruit industry, and that particular legislation did have a sunset clause in it.
I mention that legislation because I find that in looking at the whole of the fishing sector, there are a lot of similarities between the current situation being faced by fishermen and the tree fruit industry five to ten years ago: a need for change, a lot of competing pressures impacting on fishermen, and some need for facilitation of change. So I think, from that perspective, this legislation has potential.
But we also have great concerns about the structure of the board itself, the need for clarity about the purpose and the role of board members -- how they're selected -- and a clear direction as to what their job really is.
I want to refer first of all to the minister's comment about the overall fisheries strategy by the government, as announced in May. I think one of the things that is very unclear to me at this point in time is the role of this organization vis-�-vis other agencies in government. I'm not just talking about the provincial government but also the federal government in the form of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Currently we have three agencies within the provincial government -- the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; and the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism, from a sport fishing perspective -- all involved in fisheries in some manner. It
[ Page 6019 ]
really is unclear to me how Fisheries Renewal is going to fit in. Certainly in the discussions I've had with civil servants and others, it's not clear at all. To some extent, I wonder if the script is being written as we go along. Having said that, certainly we hear lots of rumours about fisheries issues being brought together in one ministry by the provincial government, and I would see that as a good thing. I think that's a necessary thing, because right now things are very disjointed. Certain sectors of the overall fishing industry are not very well represented in terms of government policy and government activity. So that's the first point I want to make.
Secondly, from a general perspective again, I think it's fine to talk about initiatives such as this with motherhood-type purposes and mandates. I'm referring in particular to sections 2 and 5 of this bill. It's great to talk about things like maintaining habitat, maintaining economic activity and maintaining jobs. But there's also a real need to walk the talk on specifics. Whether it's the salmon aquaculture review or foreshore leases or freshwater angling fees, government needs to realize that the types of decision they're making on a day-to-day basis have an impact on the fishery and the people whose living depends on it. I think that's a critical thing that needs to be remembered on a daily basis.
Now, to respond to the minister's comments about the B.C. vision and his three goals -- protection of habitat, sustainable jobs and a mechanism to involve British Columbians -- certainly we have no hesitation from this side of the House in supporting those goals. I just want to comment a little bit further on number three, the mechanism to involve British Columbians. Again, a critical aspect of this bill and of the proposed Fisheries Renewal B.C. is the involvement of stakeholders through the board of directors. To refer back to agriculture, we've seen other precedents besides the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. We've seen various types of marketing boards, marketing agencies and marketing commissions which involve producers and processors and sometimes have consumer representation. Again, I think that is the right approach to running an industry, in many cases.
In theory, it should also work in this situation. But I say in theory, because I think this is probably a more complex situation when you see the different subsectors within the fishing industry. We see aquaculture; we see commercial fishermen and various segments of the commercial fishing industry; we see the sport fishing sector; we see other interests such as environmental interests; and we see the general community interest. So in theory, it has potential as a vehicle for communities that are dependent on the fishery and particularly for direct stakeholders to get involved. But we will be raising a number of specific issues and a number of amendments, a lot of which are designed to provide some clarity to the appointment process -- to provide more discipline to the appointment process to the board of directors and also to clarify their role. I think there are some really critical things that need to be discussed there.
I also want to express some concern that this not become simply another public relations exercise. I think fish is a popular thing for politicians to get involved in. We're not interested in a public relations exercise. We're interested in serious, hard-nosed honest efforts to deal with the issues and get on with it. I think it's fair to say that some of the stuff that's been printed, some of the so-called strategy, etc., has been pretty repetitive and much more of a PR exercise than anything else. So I want to say that for the record.
Another concern, again from a general perspective, we have about this agency
I want to comment on section 3, which I think is a critical section, and section 7. Section 3 deals with the appointment of the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal, and section 7 deals with the powers and duties of that board. Those are two of the more critical sections in the bill, particularly the issue of stakeholder representation -- how they will be selected and what they will be charged with doing.
I want to refer in particular to the auditor general's recent study of Crown corporations and governance, a pretty comprehensive study that was completed just about a year ago. It reviewed governance of all of our Crown corporations generally. There were some very good suggestions made in this study that I think have particular application in this situation in terms of the ultimate success of Fisheries Renewal. One of the issues that is discussed in this report by the auditor general is a process for the identification of the skills and experience required by directors, the kinds of attributes that are required for people to serve on the board of directors of any Crown corporation but particularly this one. It sets out a process that the auditor general is suggesting be followed to get the best possible directors for this Crown corporation.
We will be introducing an amendment to the legislation that includes some of the provisions that the auditor general suggests. We feel, as I said, that it will be critical to the success of this organization that the selection process for the board of directors is done carefully, is representative of all the legitimate stakeholders and is in the appropriate balance in terms of the needs of that board of directors. There's a number of areas with respect to board governance that the auditor general addresses, which I think are very important and very useful in terms of reviewing our Crown corporations.
A specific one he raises that I am very concerned about with respect to Fisheries Renewal B.C. is the role of the board of directors themselves. It's not clear to me in this legislation whether the individual directors will be representing organizations, whether they will be representing particular stakeholder groups or whether they will be working as part of a total board of directors with no accountability directly back to a particular group or stakeholder group.
I want to read into the record a couple of sentences from the auditor general's report that I think are critical in this particular situation -- critical for the ultimate success of Fisheries Renewal B.C. I quote from the auditor general's report: "Good governance requires that the board act as a whole. It is the board that makes decisions, not individual directors. When directors are not clear as to whose interests they represent, the potential for an ineffective board increases."
[4:00]
[ Page 6020 ]
He goes on to talk about the Workers Compensation Board, and with good reason, because we saw there, with respect to the Workers Compensation Board a few years ago, an example of a board of directors that simply did not work. It didn't work because the people who were appointed to that board of directors felt and acted in a manner such that they were accountable to labour on the one hand and business on the other.We can't afford to have that type of an approach on the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal if it is to succeed. I see nothing in this legislation that addresses that issue. If there isn't something included in this legislation to deal with that -- to really make it clear that the individual directors on this board represent the broad public interest and the interests of Fisheries Renewal as an entity -- then this agency will not be successful. I think that's a very critical aspect of the structure of this organization proposed in this legislation.
Another area that I'll mention right now, which the auditor general talks about, is the statutory duties of directors. He talks about three important statutory duties of directors: "a fiduciary duty -- to act honestly and in good faith; a duty of care -- to exercise the care, diligence of a reasonably prudent person; and a conflict-of-interest duty -- to disclose any direct or indirect interest in the affairs of the corporation" -- again, very useful advice from the auditor general.
I know that in this legislation, the government is addressing to some degree the conflict-of-interest issue. But there is no mention of the other two suggestions raised by the auditor general. He certainly indicates that it would be good for the government to consider building into legislation these specifics about board-of-director responsibility.
I want to continue to speak to the issue of the board of directors, which, as I said, is critical. I want to just be a bit more specific. I talked about balance of interests on that board of directors. We're talking there about balancing economic interests versus environmental interests and possibly social interests. The minister did make some comments about the Globe and Mail's view of this government's agenda. But I'm focusing more specifically on the balance of economic interests and economic interest representation on that board versus environmental interests or possibly more general community interest. In my discussions with stakeholders about this bill and this proposal, certainly it's clear that it has the potential for broad support.
But it will have that broad support, I think, only if it includes a healthy dose of representation of the economic needs of the industry. We're talking about economic activity; we're talking about jobs. We talking about an adequate representation for the sport fishing sector, for aquaculture and for the commercial fishing sector, as opposed to other interests. It's important that the direct stakeholders, from an economic perspective, have a healthy representation on this board of directors. Again, if that doesn't happen, then I would be concerned that we're missing the opportunity, missing the whole goal of doing this whole Crown corporation.
I talked about amendments that we're going to introduce with respect to the board of directors. We'll also be introducing amendments to improve the provisions in the bill with respect to accountability -- things like having a due date, a time frame as to when an annual report should be filed, and things like specifying that the annual report should be an audited financial statement. We think those sorts of things are critical. The public meeting that the minister talked about is a good innovation. It should include not only the business plan for the coming year but also the audited financial report for the past year.
The minister talked about the financing for this organization, currently being proposed to come from FRBC. But certainly there is every indication that the government intends to consider a landing fee of, say, 3 percent on all fish landed.
If that's the case, it's appropriate that stakeholders -- i.e., fishermen who are paying that 3 percent -- have the opportunity to question how that money was spent in the last year. So we'd like to see the annual meeting or this public meeting not only include the business plan for the future, which we all know can be flowery and good news, because we haven't seen the future yet
Funding of $22.7 million over three years -- I want to just make a comment about that. It's important to recognize that these are dollars that have been announced before by the government. This is not new money. I guess the way that I like to put it is that this money is doing double duty. This money has already been announced in the form of matching dollars to federal proposals made, I think, on January 9 -- $15 million being proposed by the federal government for habitat protection and that sort of thing, seeking matching dollars from the province. So a big part of this money is the $15 million of matching dollars from the province.
Similarly, the federal government proposed -- I think, again on January 9 -- $7.7 million for transition programs. The balance of this $22.7 million represents the province's response to the federal government. I should mention that it's not a perfect match. I think the minister would probably confirm that this issue is still being negotiated with the federal government.
I just want to again mention the landing fee with respect to these comments about section 20. It's clear that $22.7 million is not the total funding of this organization. Certainly there has been, as I said, the indication of a landing fee being considered. There has been some work done by the provincial government, as I understand it, as to the how and the legality of doing that.
It is a significant concern for fishermen that the 3 percent would come off the gross revenue of a boat. That would not only impact the owner and operator of that boat, but it would also impact the share of revenue that goes to the crew that works on that boat. As I understand it, a lot of them work on a percentage of the take of the boat. I think the merit of going that route is an issue that we would want to debate seriously. A lot of fishermen, as I said, are very concerned about it. They're concerned that the hard-earned dollars that they make will be checked off at the dock, if you will, and used to subsidize and provide make-work programs for other fishermen who may not be quite so enterprising. I want to register that concern, and I don't think there are just one or two people that are concerned about it.
Finally, section 14 deals with a limit on administrative and non-program expenditures. I like the intent of the section, but simply passing a section like that does not guarantee effectiveness. It will be very interesting to see this Crown corporation and how it operates unfold with what we have been assured to be an absolute minimum skeleton crew of staff. It will certainly be a big difference from Forest Renewal. We'll watch with some interest to see how they do contain administrative costs. As I said, it may offer a good sound bite, but the proof is in the pudding and in the performance of how it actually works.
[ Page 6021 ]
In summary, we support the intent and the principle of this bill. We support an initiative such as this which attempts to bring stakeholders together in a consultative, cooperative fashion. For it to be successful, we think it's critical that there be more work done on the whole issue of the appointment process to the board, in particular the mandate of that board, and how they're intended to work together as they go down the road. We think it's important to emphasize economic issues versus environmental issues. We think it's important that the direct economic stakeholders have an adequate level of representation on this board of directors.
With that, I'm pleased to participate in this debate. We look forward to discussing a number of amendments in committee stage and to discussing this particular bill section by section.
F. Gingell: This reminds me somewhat of a debate we held in this House four or five years ago when we were setting up FRBC. This is a project that I think all members of the House support. All of us wonder why it's taken this government five years -- almost six years since they got into office -- to start to deal with the issues of the reclamation of damage caused to fish habitat and to see that our habitat is healthy and productive.
As we all know, we may be very upset with our neighbours to the north in Alaska about the number of fish they catch and whether those fish are sockeye or pinks. But the work that they have done in Alaska to restore the salmon-bearing streams -- primarily pinks, as I understand it -- has caused them a problem: they catch more pink salmon than they can sell, and they're having to get into arguments about landfill and those kinds of issues.
A little less than a year ago, we in the opposition began to hear rumours and stories, and we became concerned about raids on forest renewal funds. Now, we all supported the intention of forest renewal. We were all in favour of renewing the forests. We just got into differences of opinion about the best way that those things could be accomplished. If one goes back and reads through Hansard and sees some of the things about the inviolacy of these funds, how they would never be touched, how they were precious and that no one would have the audacity to raid them, it has been interesting to see what has happened in this past year.
The concern that's been expressed by the citizens of this province over the intention to raid Forest Renewal, over the intention to declare a dividend, caused the provincial government to reverse that position and try and push expenditures in, rather than take funds out. That's clearly what has happened, and that's clearly what is happening here.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo wishes to add something?
S. Hawkins: Cowichan-Ladysmith.
F. Gingell: Cowichan-Ladysmith wishes to add something? Well, if you do, would you speak a little louder? I'm getting old and deaf, and I can't hear.
Where were we? We were talking about the raid on Forest Renewal. That gives me an opportunity to bring back an embarrassing subject for this bunch of scoundrels across the Legislature. I must admit that the argument of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about why this should be funded by FRBC is one of the best arguments I've heard for raiding Forest Renewal. Certainly, questionable logging practices in past years may have added substantially to the reclamation job that faces us. So perhaps FRBC is a good place to get started.
[4:15]
We support the principles, of course. Let's spend some money sensibly, thoughtfully, carefully, effectively. Let's clearly identify the goals for what it is we're trying to accomplish to ensure that the money is spent in the best possible manner.I personally question the need to set up these separate organizations. I think the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Environment could have got on with this job before, but they have decided to do it in this fashion. I don't think all of the organization and the way they've set it up adds up, quite honestly. Maybe that's why it's called Bill 19. It's somewhat like a crib hand: it doesn't add up if it comes out to 19.
So as our critic, the member for Abbotsford, said, we will be making a series of amendments. We're going to make sure that the minister has an opportunity to see them first, because I hope that they will be accepted. The amendments are intended to just bring the accountability that is within this bill up into the 1990s. It's going to deal with issues such as the one the member mentioned: the appointment of board members. Let's have a good, open process. It's going to call for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to do an inventory as a starting point to find out where we are before we go rushing off doing things. If an inventory of the state of the various fisheries grounds isn't presently in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Ministry of Environment, let's find out exactly what the current status is and make that public. Then I think we need to clearly identify and clearly state what it is we are trying to accomplish, and that is part of the business plan. We'll be making some suggestions about how the business plan process should be handled.
The Speaker will remember that a big issue in dealing with Forest Renewal B.C., agreed at the beginning and not spoken to much these days by the government, was related to incrementality. All expenditures by the ministry, by Forest Renewal B.C. had to be incremental. They had to be incremental to expenditures, responsibilities -- at that point, of the Ministry of Forests -- or to a licence holder or the ministry under the small business program. They had to be incremental.
The intention of Forest Renewal B.C. funds was not to do the work that is presently required, because we were trying to make things better, not just stay where we were. I think that's an important rule for Fisheries Renewal to also follow. That's why we think there should be an inventory beforehand and why there should be clearly enunciated and identified goals.
So we're going to suggest that there be a little better timing. When one recognizes that there's going to be a business plan and a financial report, together with an annual report -- and Fisheries Renewal is going to have a March 31 year-end, as does the government -- it would seem appropriate to have the business plan for the year following submitted by January 31. As soon as that is available to come from cabinet
[ Page 6022 ]
have the business plan done by January 31 and to have the public meetings as soon thereafter as can reasonably be arranged, but certainly before the House sits, presently at the end of March.
Then you need to put a real deadline in for the tabling of the annual report. I would suggest that 90 days after the fiscal year-end -- i.e., June 30 -- is a sensible date. That annual report should not only show the financial statements, it should also identify the results. In the description it suggests: "
We're also going to make a minor amendment that I hope the minister will accept: that the auditor general should advise the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the appointment of an auditor for Fisheries Renewal B.C., because Fisheries Renewal B.C. statements will be consolidated into the financial statements of the province, on which the auditor general is required to express an opinion.
There are a series of amendments that we're going to put forward to try to make the accountability in a more logical, progressive manner, and give the information to the citizens of the province, particularly to the minister and the officials in his ministry, so they can react appropriately. I sincerely hope that the minister will accept them.
One last point: when the Premier of this province came into office and spoke early in the first session of last year, he talked about making the standing committee process of this Legislature work in a more effective manner -- give them some important and necessary work to do. Well, the result of that is that nothing's happened. The committees haven't sat; nothing has been referred to them.
I see that a notice has gone around, and I understand that finally the Forests committee is going to sit on the Forest Renewal B.C. business plan. How many weeks late is that? It didn't come to any conclusions last year. I had the honour or privilege -- it wasn't much of a privilege, actually -- of sitting on the committee in 1995, and it wasn't a very instructive or productive process.
I think that government members should look at these select standing committee assignments as an opportunity to contribute and an opportunity to herald change -- and good change at that.
So as our critic said, we will be supporting this bill. We'll be putting forward what we believe are positive amendments and hope to make it all work better. With that, I thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill 19.
R. Thorpe: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on Bill 19. I have some concerns that "here we go again," but I believe, as do my colleagues, that the strategic thrust of this bill is correct. With members of the official opposition, I agree with the principles to renew the fisheries and to enhance fish, the fisheries and fish habitat.
However, the real issue for me is the fishers and their families. I have some very, very grave concerns about the ability of this government and its lack of management expertise. In fact, this government has proven time and time again that, quite frankly, it's incompetent when it comes to management.
A further concern I have about FRBC 2 is the independence of this Crown and the independence of this board. I am very, very concerned that this board is once again going to be stacked with insiders and friends of the government.
Many speakers on the opposition side have said today that we are supportive. We are supportive of the concept; we are supportive of the thrust. But we want British Columbians to believe that the government is sincere. I challenge this minister to carefully review the amendments as they come forward and to ensure that this board is not stacked with insiders and friends, that we are all truly committed to renewing the fisheries in British Columbia, to enhancing fish, fisheries and the fish habitat, and to assisting the fishers and their families.
Therefore I ask that this government look at these amendments so that they can attract very disciplined and professional people who know what has to be done, who have the expertise, and that the government embark upon a process where they can attract real people from real communities throughout British Columbia that are affected, people who have real solutions to the problems, so that once again it's not insiders and friends espousing political rhetoric.
Most recently, as the fish wars continue, a fisher -- I believe it was from Prince Rupert -- said: "Take the politicians out of the current situation, and we, the people, would build the solution. We know how to solve the problem. We would look after our families. Take the politicians out of it." Isn't it interesting
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: The member across would do well to listen to this: a fisher from south of the border said exactly the same words. What do the fishers know and what do the fishers' families know that the politicians don't know? I believe that fishers and their families get it, and it's about time that this government got it.
Thus I request that the minister listen very carefully to the families who are directly affected all up and down the coasts of British Columbia. This NDP government will say: "If we don't control the board, how are we going to control what goes on?" It's really quite simple. As my colleague from Delta South alluded to a few seconds ago, it's what this Premier said in this House just over a year ago that together we have to work in partnership for all British Columbians and stop the political rhetoric. It's about time this Premier kept one of his promises -- especially the ones he makes in this House.
[4:30]
Let's get the Legislative Assembly Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries actively involved with FRBC. Let us make it real. Let us show British Columbians that when we're in this House, in this Legislative Assembly, we are truly working for them.And, of course, accountability
[ Page 6023 ]
that we can be accountable to all British Columbians. We need a measurement technique included in this bill and, of course, full accountability for all British Columbians.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Isn't it interesting that all of these things I've just mentioned are also recommendations called for by the auditor general in his recently completed Crown corporations governance study? Yet does this government listen? Has this government heard? No, it hasn't. These things have been discussed at Public Accounts. Still, most of the recommendations of the auditor general are not brought forward in Bill 19. When one reads this bill and looks at the details and sees such words as, when it refers to the annual report, "as soon as practicable," that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. I'm sure that when anyone listening out there hears the words of the NDP government, "as soon as practicable," they don't become warm and fuzzy. In fact, I believe it gives an indication to the people of British Columbia that once again we're embarking down a road of a scam and a sham. It's a media show. It's more propaganda, and that is wrong.
Further evidence of a scam is when this government projects that it's committing 22.7 million new dollars to this FRBC. All the while, it's not new money; it's off-balance-sheet financing coming from other locations. All the while, this very much-needed problem and concern
Thus, as I read this legislation, I can only conclude that this NDP government does not have a plan to protect or enhance the lives of our fishers and their families. This vehicle, which is so lacking in its business approach, is, sadly, probably going to encounter serious difficulties. And the fishers and their families, as they go through these extreme difficulties
That's why I ask this minister to listen carefully and to seriously entertain and accept the amendments so that this plan can be referred to the select standing committee so that we can build together. I think it's important for the minister to know -- and we've stated -- that conceptually, we support it. We want to work with the minister and his officials in his ministry to build a better fishing industry in the province of British Columbia so that we can support families and have families support themselves and their communities. So I ask this minister to very, very seriously consider the use of the select standing committee. I, like my colleague from Abbotsford, look forward to going through point by point in committee stage the various items in this bill that quite frankly need to be fixed and need to be improved.
I challenge this government, as I close: if they are committed to the fishers and the fisher families of British Columbia, listen to our amendments, accept our amendments. We can all work together to make this legislation work for all British Columbians.
J. Wilson: I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on FRBC 2. When you look at the design of FRBC 2, it's not a whole lot different from FRBC 1. If we care to go back a little bit and look at FRBC 1, when it was set up, there was a lot of rhetoric around it: "We're going to do this, we're going to do that, we're going to keep our administration to a minimum, we're going to get those dollars out there on the land base and we're going to do a job."
Well, in the opinion of a great many people in this province, that's not what happened. We're getting the dollars out but not to the land base. The money, in a lot of cases, is not put to the best use -- that is, renewing our forests as it was intended to. The administrative costs have climbed and the envelope percentages have changed to some extent. A lot of people have good jobs all right, within the infrastructure of the organization, the Crown. Probably the biggest surprise of all is that it has now become a slush fund for the IWA. That in itself was not part of the original mandate.
When I look at FRBC 2, I see the same thing developing here. Even though this government gets a few good ideas, every time they try to implement one, they fall down. They just cannot seem to make things work the way they should work. Granted, FRBC 2 is a good idea. Unfortunately, when you look at the track record of FRBC 1, we are headed for another potential disaster in this Crown corporation. It could very well become another slush fund for the Fishermen's Union. Who knows? We don't know what promises have been made in the last year, and the potential is there.
Things can be done. You don't have to complicate the whole thing here. If you want to get into FRBC and you want to grow trees, you want to enhance the forest, then you look at the tree, prepare a bed, plant it, and you manage the tree. The same thing applies to raising fish. You have a habitat, and you can also improve on that. We have some hatcheries around this province which have a tremendous amount of potential. However, the job does not seem to get done, and I don't see here where anything will change.
When I say that the job doesn't get done, I can't help but think of the hatchery we have in Likely. They have a capacity of five million fish. Last year I believe they were allowed, by DFO, to put out 125,000. The people there have taken this over from the federal government. They were given a very small quota.
The potential is there, and if we approach it from that aspect, then we can produce fish. We can produce so many fish in this province that everyone will have ample fish for whatever reason, whether it's in the sport fishing industry or whether it's in the commercial industry. That is one of the roles that FRBC 2 should be looking at and should be making one of its priorities. I don't see that in here.
When you take a hatchery with a potential for producing five million fish a year and you reduce it to 100,000, that's not production at a time when we need fish. Everyone out there today needs these fish, and the job is not getting done. That is basically where I see this Crown corporation going -- down the road that FRBC 1 went. Hopefully it won't, but unfortunately, with the record of this government with job appointments, patronage appointments, etc., that is the most likely scenario out of this new Crown corporation.
With that I would like to close.
G. Wilson: My goodness. I hope that it's not quite that gloomy a picture.
In rising on Bill 19, the first question that hasn't been asked in this debate and that I'd like to ask in this debate -- it might seem a bit surprising that I would -- is: why? The minister made reference to comments that were made by fishers in Powell River when the minister visited there and somebody said: "Why would we do this?" As the minister correctly alluded to in the reference that was made, the question was asked in relation to the catch that takes place outside of B.C. waters by foreign fleets, predominantly American fleets.
[ Page 6024 ]
I'm asking the question of the minister in a much broader context. Why are we doing this? Don't get me wrong for a second. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be doing this. We should be doing this, but we have to know why we are doing this. I don't think that we've heard much about that in the debate yet. I'd like to hear from the minister as to what exactly the end objective is. To be sure, it says that we're promoting, protecting, conserving and enhancing fish stocks and fish habitat. That's laudable. The question is: why are we doing that? For whom are we doing that? What is the long-term benefit going to be? Who's going to enjoy that benefit?
The reason that I ask that question is because we are in the trouble we are in today in the west coast fishery because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal department, never really quite came to grips with that question. Why are they doing what they're doing, and what is their mandate with respect to the long-term management and enhancement of the stock? That's a very, very important question. We heard from the previous speaker that by enhancing hatcheries we could produce enough fish so that everybody could catch what they needed. We would simply put more quantity, more volume of fish out there every year, and through that increased volume, we would give enough for everybody to catch.
That is just not true. Fish are one part of a broader ecosystem, and they have to eat something. There will be predation. There will be a whole series of effects on the food chain, and on top of that we also have to recognize that there are competing uses for water and water quality that will impact whether or not we are successful in what we're doing. If we're going to put a whole lot of money into enhancing streams, putting in hatcheries and doing whatever other kinds of fish promotion projects that we think we ought to do, then we'd better make sure that it fits into the broader economic plan we have with respect to how we manage the coastal ecosystem in more broad and more general terms.
I would say that we ought to be considering, in this fisheries renewal bill, Bill 19, not only those fish that have commercial value but especially those fish that do not have any commercial value but that form an integral and important part in the overall marine ecosystem because they are food for fish that have value or because they formulate a part of the habitat, generally speaking, that is important for us to consider.
[4:45]
It seems to me that when we look at this, we really do have to ask ourselves whether or not this is simply an effort to take money, in whatever quantities and whatever sum, and pump that money into the provision of fish for a commercial fishery -- whether that commercial fishery is by way of some kind of gear type that might be a troller, a gill-netter, a seine fisher or even somebody who is involved in another form of commercial fishery which is essentially on the sport side. It's a multi-multi-million-dollar industry, as the minister well knows, and affects the whole tourism dollar that relates to it. If that's going to be our focus -- if that's going to be our sole and only focus -- then the measure of success or failure of this bill will simply be the bottom line of a ledger with respect to the return to government for our investment. If we do that, my belief is that we will have failed.We will have failed because we will have failed to recognize what is so incredibly important in this potential that is in front of us now, and that's to broaden the scope of what we're doing to enhance the entire marine ecosystem and to recognize that there are many fish whose stocks are not even measured because they have no commercial value and are depleting, and depleting rapidly -- not because they're being overfished, but because the marine ecosystem in itself is changing, is altering. We're not doing a whole lot about it.
It would mean that we'd also have to take into account something that's extremely sensitive, something on which many people out there say, "Oh no, for goodness' sakes don't even raise it in debate," and that's the whole question of predation and the control of predators, seals in particular. This is a touchy subject, because seals are these big
I would start off by answering the question why. I would suggest to the minister that it's not so that we can simply promote a commercial fishery -- although that's a critically important component, a most critically important component -- but so that we can recognize there is a broader ecosystem demand that really does rely, now, on this government to start to invest and put money into it.
It's interesting. The Liberal critic from Abbotsford made a comment that it's kind of a glitzy thing to talk about fish, and politicians make a lot of hay out of talking about fish. I've been around politics for quite a number of years now -- almost ten at this level of politics -- and I can't remember a time when politicians ever talked about fish. In fact, part of the problem is that they didn't talk about fish enough. Largely, in the saltwater fishery anyway, it was a Department of Fisheries concern. It was a federal issue, a federal concern.
Let me say that the importance here is to protect a way of life, a way of life that is the core of the coastal communities of British Columbia, a way of life that people have enjoyed from generation to generation and a way of life that is quickly being diminished because we have not put into effect the kind of controls to be able to protect the marine ecosystem in its entirety.
I think that one of the dangers we run into, in looking at this bill -- and I'll get into the mechanics of it in just a moment -- is the fact that we will still be directed, even now, in terms of those who benefit, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal relationship, with respect to those people who will sit on the new Fisheries Renewal board. I think that that relationship is something that's critical, because what makes this unique from and quite different from Forest Renewal -- and that's why I don't think that the analogies really fit very well -- is the fact that we still do not have autonomy over this commercial industry. We still must deal with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, federally, and the aboriginal fisheries strategy with respect to who gets to share in this resource.
It strikes me that what we have to do in working through this is that we have to come together -- all of us, regardless of our own political backgrounds -- and act as good, strong British Columbians to say that we, for the first time, are going to take control of this resource. And for the first time we are going to signal Ottawa that now is the time for us to really get serious about putting in place a management strategy that will protect marine ecosystems and in the long term will be able to maintain stocks, not simply pump numbers of fish out because we want to catch them.
[ Page 6025 ]
That's a difficult, difficult proposition. I think that the minister and this government, in bringing forward this bill, have really established a huge challenge. It's a very, very difficult challenge for whoever takes over this task, because there are so many competing industries. There are so many competing demands with respect to the marine ecosystem, that the question of why we're doing it must always be at the forefront of the decisions that are being made and must be the guiding principle that allows the divestment of moneys to go back out into the communities. It is a way of life. That's why we're doing it. We are protecting not just the fish; we are protecting the marine ecosystem in its entirety in order to protect a way of life -- a way of life that will be gone completely.
I understand the concern of the member for Abbotsford, who said that the aquaculture industry wants to be on this committee. Well, we have to be very careful here, because we have competing interests within the management of the fishery, competing interests that are commercial, and aquaculture will compete. Whether they like to suggest they will or not, they do compete with respect to the market share of fish that go out of the province, and they do have a very significant impact on price. We generate all of these fish; we put these fish out there. We have to always be cognizant of the fact that there is a supply-demand relationship with the market -- people who are going to be taking our caught fish or our farmed fish and pay whatever the market price is prepared to bear.
Now, that price fluctuates dramatically, and one of the particular problems we have is that not all species of salmon command the same price. Hence we have to be extremely careful about stock management, species management and which river and stream stocks we're going start to put our emphasis on if we're to look at maintaining not just the commercial integrity but the broader ecological integrity of what it is we're attempting to do.
It means that we have to, finally -- and I'm hoping we can in the very near future see the aquaculture review come out -- start to come to grips with how that industry interfaces with the commercial industry. It has an impact. It has a very real and direct impact, in terms of price, in terms of siting of farms and in terms of the overall management of the fish stock. So that becomes an important consideration with respect to what it is we're attempting to do here.
Before I get into the structure of it, I just want to point out that we have to also consider that "fish" as it's defined here includes more than simply finfish. It also includes shellfish, crustaceans and aquatic animals, and it even includes aquatic plants in this definition -- all of which are incredibly important with respect to the management of our fish stocks.
I would hope that one of the first areas of concern that this group is going to look at is in the management of the herring stock, and in making sure that we protect areas of eelgrass, which are quickly being diminished on our coast -- the eelgrass being the area in which herring spawn provide stocks of fish that are so critically important to maintaining the food source for the larger pelagic fish that we catch and enjoy.
I would hope they would also look at another area that I think is under major threat -- not just in terms of commercial extinction, but extinction, period -- and that is on the southern portions of our coast with respect to the ling cod, rock cod and snapper populations. Those fish used to have tremendous value and supported a significantly large number of fishers who went out there and were able to make a reasonably good living. Today, we have people with rods who are going out ten and 12 in number in small boats and are catching every single little rock cod, no matter what size it is. They are simply pulling them out of the ocean, so the rock cod population is diminishing. That is a critical issue, and yet we don't hear much about it, because it isn't part of the broader commercial interests of the salmon-fishing community.
I want to turn a bit to the structure of what we're doing here, having focused on the why -- and that is, again, because we are trying to protect a way of life. The structure of Fisheries Renewal B.C. is modelled after Forest Renewal B.C. My first concern was that Forest Renewal British Columbia didn't really work very well -- at least I don't think it's worked very well up to now. Why is it that we have tried to embark upon the same model? Where I would differ from my colleagues in the Liberal opposition in trying to draw that comparison is that there is one very critical difference. And that is that we've got our federal cousins sitting in here, still with their spoon very much in the pot, stirring it from time to time and causing us a great deal of difficulty in terms of being able to deal with these matters in an autonomous way. So we are going to have to have some form of intergovernmental agency or some form of intergovernmental play.
Now, I've read through the so-called salmon treaty that we put together -- it's essentially an agreement with respect to the protection of salmon for jobs and communities. I think the government is to be congratulated for getting it as far as they did, although I caution that we didn't go as far as we would like -- at least not as far as I would like. Because in looking at this, we have to be ever mindful of the fact that the federal government will be quite willing to off-load to us all of the parts of the management that are going to cost us money and yet control restriction with respect to the stacking of licences, the openings and who gets to fish where and when -- in effect, have us, the people of British Columbia, finance the re-establishment of the salmon industry, and then to put it into the hands of a few major companies who essentially, through their fishers and through the boats they own, own all of the licences and control the stock.
I don't think that we want to turn over the B.C. salmon industry to one or two major companies at the expense of a more diversified industry which allows smaller fishers an opportunity to make a living. It comes back to the "why" that I said in the very beginning of my remarks. This is not a program that should be set up to simply finance large corporate interests; it has to protect and establish the longstanding way of life that people in coastal British Columbia have enjoyed for a long, long time. These are the people who were so devastated when the Mifflin plan came in, many of whom have not recovered yet, many of whom are still struggling. The minister knows who they are, because the minister, to his great credit, did take the time to go out and meet them, talk with them and hear firsthand the pain that some of the families felt when they had to try to deal with the change that was coming down the line. So we have to be ever mindful of that, and that's why I think that the way the system is structured might -- and I say might -- work.
However, let me offer to the minister a couple of constructive comments. Where I have difficulty is the fact that still we are centring revenue that is not yet to be expended. Under section 21, it says: "Fisheries Renewal BC must place with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations for investment money it receives but does not immediately require for carrying out the purposes of this Act."
That's a bit of a problem, because the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is a hungry guy when it comes to cash -- in this case, guy; it could be a woman. Who knows?
[ Page 6026 ]
Cabinet shuffles occur; anybody could take on that portfolio. But the fact is that when the government is cash-strapped, and there's money here that sits for investment purposes
It seems to me that the way we should be moving on this is to divest that money and get that money into the communities, where the communities have access to it and have an opportunity to invest it directly in programs within those communities. I have long believed that the mechanism to do that is to get it out to the credit unions. Why? Because the people in the community can hold shares in the credit union; they can directly benefit from the investment in it; they can sit on the board; they can have, as an expanded board, an opportunity to have some say in how that money will be applied. It's a sensible way to go, and it removes the constraints that will otherwise be on that money because it sits in general revenue. We don't want that money to come to central government. We want it to go to the communities, and the way to get it to the communities is to move it out and to use the credit union system. That is a system, I think, that is in place that can make it work.
[5:00]
When we set up this new little tourism agency to manage tourism, I didn't like the disclosure-of-conflict guidelines under that Crown corporation, and I don't like them here. I just don't like the language on disclosure-of-conflict-of-interest questions, and I've said my piece on that before. It's exactly the same, and I ditto what I said before. I would prefer to see much stricter guidelines with respect to how those conflict regulations are enacted. Having said that, and having gone on the record with that before, I think that we can. My guess is that as things progress, we will start to work through those problems and get them dealt with.Let me conclude my remarks by saying two things. When I opened up my remarks, I asked the question why. I didn't ask it from the standpoint of the international fishery, which is a huge problem. I'm going to conclude with that point. I suggested to the minister that the reason we want to do this
So I will work with this government, and I will work with this minister to make sure that this bill works as effectively and as efficiently as possible in order to make sure that the constituents that I represent are properly and adequately served by it. That's a commitment I make to it. I have some reservations on how we're going to do that, but, hopefully, those reservations will be gone as we see the application of the bill. Let me say that that's important.
The reason is not just so that we can have a large commercial fishery that services the large private corporations but so that we can protect and preserve a way of life -- a way of life for people who have chosen to live the way they do in the coastal communities I represent, so that their children can live the same way, so that they can have an opportunity to sustain that way of life which has been so much a part of the history of British Columbia.
Let me conclude by saying a second thing. It has to do with the problems we face with the Americans at the moment. I don't like all of this rhetoric around war. This is not a war. I don't like the term "hostages." I don't like the fact that fishers that are sitting up in Prince Rupert are called "Canadian troops" stationed in Prince Rupert. You know what? That makes a mockery. That kind of commentary in the local press makes a mockery of people who served in a real war, where they lost their lives, where families lost loved ones. War is not a thing to be glorified. War is not a thing that we should stand up and try to pretend is something that's glitzy or glamorous or that we can somehow make some kind of political points over. War is a disgraceful thing that humans, unfortunately, from time to time engage in, and I would like to see it eradicated. If I had a choice, we would be able to do that.
What is going on is not a war. What is going on is an absolute, flagrant violation of the law of a treaty. That's what's going on. We have an international court that should hear that immediately, and we have a body in the assembly of the United Nations that can come forward and condemn those governments who flagrantly violate international agreements. That's what's going on. Let's put it in perspective, because this is not a battle between little old B.C. and the big old United States. This is a battle for survival for people whose livelihoods are threatened because we have had a difficulty in maintaining and preserving salmon stocks. This bill goes a long way to solving that problem.
So let's hope that no one in this Legislative Assembly speaks of it as a war, because it isn't. People who are veterans of real war have said to me over the weekend that they are offended at the constant reference and the hyperbole that goes on around this issue. This is a violation of an agreement -- flagrant violation -- and as a result of that, those who perpetrate that violation should be responsible and held accountable in an international court of law.
When this bill goes into effect -- and when the results come out of the renewal of the salmon stock as a result of the money, the time and the energy that the people in this province put in, as a result of what we can do now with this money made possible through this bill -- we have to know that the international courts and other member communities, other member nations, are going to hold our neighbour to the south accountable when they simply flagrantly violate an international agreement. That's where the pressure has to come from -- not from our fleet who simply have nobody else to assist them, to the point that they're pressed to do what they have done in blockading the ferries.
The international court is where that needs to move, and it needs to move there now. We need an injunction now. We need to have the Americans held accountable for those overfished sockeye. Anything short of that -- anything short of some kind of hammer that can come down to say "an end to this kind of overfishing" -- makes what we can accomplish under this bill worthless, because we'll enhance our stocks, pelagic by nature, and they'll go out into international waters and on the route back will simply be caught up, sold and consumed by American fishers.
This is a very positive step. I've offered my full support to the minister in trying to see it come about. I hope that the minister has heard my remarks with respect to how the money is invested. It's critical. I hope that the minister also recognizes that there are many people in British Columbia who want to put their shoulder to the wheel on this issue to make sure that we in fact get our maximum benefit for the money that we do expend. With that, I'll take my chair.
I. Chong: I too am pleased to rise today and offer some comments on second reading debate of Bill 19, the Fisheries
[ Page 6027 ]
Renewal Act. I want to speak specifically to this act. On the surface, this bill appears to be good legislation that can be supported by all members of this Legislature. So I do hope that, in fact, this bill will prove to be good legislation. When I say that, I say so because I do have some concerns -- concerns about accountability and about integrity. I shall, during the committee stage debate, ask very specific and important questions on those particular issues that are of concern to me.
When I look at the purpose of this act, which is "to undertake strategic initiatives to renew the fisheries, and enhance fish, fisheries and fish habitat, in British Columbia
What concerns me and many other British Columbians is whether this NDP government can actually deliver on its purpose or its mandate. It hasn't appeared to in the last six years, because what we have seen and what we have experienced are broken promises, side shifts on funding commitments and special deals for union friends. I am hopeful that this new corporation will not become yet another government bureaucracy bogged down with regulation and red tape. I'm hoping, instead, that it will have the ability and the authority to be somewhat independent, because in order to deal with the concerns of the various stakeholders, in order to be effective, in order to deal with fish, fisheries and fish habitat, this corporation must show its willingness to listen, and it must be able to implement good ideas that may arise from the stakeholders. So there must be some public consultation -- something which we have seen that this government has severely lacked in the past.
I am hoping that this new Crown corporation will engage in ample public consultation, especially in the initial stages, so that we can look at recommendations, suggestions and good ideas. I hope the minister will indulge the stakeholders for that purpose, because he has taken it upon himself to go out and meet with the communities. I'm hoping that his actions will continue in the future.
I also noted that contained within the mandate of the act, this corporation is permitted to undertake programs for strategic investments, which, incidentally, includes supporting destination tourism marketing initiatives. Given this government's record this year alone on policies affecting tourism, I am extremely worried about that particular strategic initiative.
You may recall, hon. Speaker, that earlier this year the Minister of Environment introduced increases to angling fees, the intent being to augment habitat restoration and conservation programs. But what it did, in effect, was drive away tourists and put jobs and small businesses at risk. Essentially, the policy that was introduced was ill conceived. Thankfully, after much public outcry, the minister -- and therefore the government -- backed down on their proposed angling fee increases. I am grateful, as are all the stakeholders involved, that this government did listen and back down.
What I learned from that situation was more information about this government's urban habitat program. Those who make their living in the sport or recreational fishing industries are just as keen to restore and protect fish habitat and streams. They do not want to endanger those things that they make their living from. They, too, believe in habitat restoration.
The people who called me when the angling fee increases were introduced were concerned that they were already collecting large sums of money in the way of revenue, fees, for this government, and that they were sending those moneys down here to Victoria. But when those moneys were here in Victoria, they rarely saw those moneys being returned to their communities.
In particular, some communities had habitat and restoration programs that they wanted to implement, because they did want to see that their livelihood could continue and be sustained. Those communities made requests for funds. What they had to do to receive those funds, for exactly what this act is intended for
The only conclusion I could draw was that this government didn't support the urban habitat program as much as they believed they did, or that if in fact they did support it, they had no mechanism in place to be accountable for it. Seeing that this government has not yet demonstrated any overwhelming success to date in terms of their urban habitat program, I am rightfully concerned, as are members on this side of the House, about where this government is headed with this particular act.
My colleagues on this side of the House have already raised a number of issues that I, too, am concerned about. I won't repeat all of those concerns, but suffice it to say that during committee stage, there will be questions raised. There will be questions raised as to the board composition of this new corporation, because clearly we have to ensure that there is a voice for those who are going to be most affected by this new piece of legislation. There will also be questions raised about the board, including, but not limited to, their capacity and their powers. Once again, if those things are not clear and they're not identified and they are not understood by all parties affected, there will be questions arising later which, while I wouldn't say it would cause the demise of the board, would certainly cause a lot of concern that this has become yet another government bureaucracy.
[5:15]
There will also be questions regarding the financial administration and the business plan, particularly surrounding the revenue aspects of this new piece of legislation. Those are the areas that I will probably be most focusing my attention on. As we heard earlier, the financial administration of this will largely dictate whether it will in fact be a success -- if it is to continue to be sustained over a number of years, that is. We've already seen other pieces of legislation and other Crown corporations which have not clearly shown what I would call good sound financial administration. We are seeing a new Crown corporation in the tourism industry that has yet to develop its business plan. We will be looking at this new corporation developing a business plan so that all stakeholders are aware of what this government wishes to direct its attention to or its focus to in the next few years.As to the questions regarding the revenue aspects, that is also a major concern. These are not government's dollars; all the money raised is always the taxpayers' dollars. They want us to be accountable. They want us to hold this government's feet to the fire when it comes to the expenditure of that
[ Page 6028 ]
revenue. But they also want accountability as to raising the revenues and whether the raising of revenues is fair and is reasonable.
If, as I understand it, raising the revenues will impact on the fishing industry to the extent that it's a percentage of the gross catch of fishing revenues, then at the outset this government has clearly already taken one step backwards. When you start to tax the gross sales, if you will, of a boat while ignoring all the costs involved, then you're headed in a direction where it becomes a huge fee increase -- something that this government said there wouldn't be when it made its election promises. As we are already seeing, there have been a number of fee increases.
So if this government is intent on seeing that this piece of legislation works for its stakeholders, then I hope it is listening and will allow for debate on those issues.
I will conclude by stating that I do in fact support the intent and the thrust of this legislation. If it fulfils its purpose and it meets the test of accountability, then there will be little, if any, need to criticize this act.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose comments will close second reading debate.
Hon. C. Evans: I'll try to be brief without ignoring the issues raised.
First, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asked the question why, and I've written down a couple of issues. I think it's a good point: if you're going to pass a bill, you might as well ask yourself why. I've heard the Minister of Forests on several occasions suggest that maybe society needs fewer bills, so maybe we should start all the debates this way.
First, we have to do this is order to bring the provincial government -- the people of B.C., really -- to the table. On the subject of fisheries, we've had our cake and eaten it too for a real long time. We could go out there and log or mine or build dams or highways or towns any way we wanted, doing whatever we wanted to the habitat. I remember that when I first started logging on Vancouver Island, we actually used to dig up the bottoms of rivers for cheap gravel. Then we would stand back and blame DFO if no fish came back. We have to do this in order to mature as a society, because we don't really belong at the table with our criticisms in the absence of a recognition that we have a role to play in the restoration of habitat and then in the maintenance of habitat. That's the first step.
The second reason is that we need to do this in order to find a mechanism to engage the communities in the solutions for the problems in their own lives. I have been involved in resource issues all my adult life, anyway, and I've never come upon something so dysfunctional as the federal government's consultation mechanisms with fishing people.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: We're getting into the heckling. You get into it and I'll get into it. I might actually get motivated in this debate and wake up after the blah-blah-blah I've listened to for an hour.
Hon. member, there are something like 130 different consultations that DFO engages in with various parts of the fishing community. It is archetypical; it's the most perfect system for divide-and-conquer that I've ever seen. When I got this job, it seemed to me that my biggest job was to get native and non-native and sport and commercial and various gear types and northern and southern interests together somewhere and actually talk about what they had in common as opposed to what they have that holds them apart. We need to do this to create the table, the motivation being the funding for restoration that brings people together to learn how -- to learn the language in common -- to have the conversation that should have been going on for decades.
The third reason: we need to create this institution to put the funding beyond the reach of the people who work in this room. We need to recognize that restoration of habitat, enhancement of stocks and sustainability of communities is actually work that's too important for folks whose life's mission is essentially to dismantle government to get at
The fourth reason: the federal government DFO funding has been restricted over time. I think that lots of people who worked there went to college, were interested in fish, were interested in biology, wanted to manage fish, went to work in an institution that had a long history, quite an honourable history of doing that. Slowly, slowly, the money was withdrawn. So those people trying to manage the fishery thought up a strategy for how to deal with less money. They essentially decided: "Okay, let's abandon the little streams in the middle and go with the two-rivers policy. We'll enhance the Skeena and the Fraser, and we'll let everything else go."
I've been standing up and criticizing that policy. There are a lot of people who live between those two rivers who were born there and whose ancestors were there, and who want to go on living there -- people who come to me and say: "You know what? The biggest hole in the history of British Columbia is Rivers Inlet, what we did to that place." I can't just criticize DFO and their policies. It is required that criticism is actually backed up with substance. Let me say that again: it is sometimes required that criticism is actually backed up with substance -- in some people's case, dare I even say it, an analysis. At any rate, this ought to provide the substance and the analysis in order to deal with the two-rivers policy, in order that we can show that there are communities and rivers and streams, habitats and stocks, in between the Skeena and the Fraser, and we actually care about it. I hope that answers the question of why.
This won't take very long, because all the other criticisms
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: They amaze me. You are sort of a revered person, hon. Speaker. We come to you with our serious issues and our big problems. My question for you
[ Page 6029 ]
I'll tell you, I've been wondering: what is a Liberal? We're in here with Fisheries Renewal. There are two Liberals willing to deal with this issue. In fact, they're cabinet ministers, federal Liberal cabinet ministers. On this very day, the day of this historic debate on Fisheries Renewal, they got it. They understood there was a crisis and flew all the way across the country. And what did they do when they got here? Did they stand up for Canadians and tell the Americans to obey the law? Is that what they came for? They came to attack British Columbians for threatening to close the nuclear base that the Americans needed. They flew across the country to fight their own people.
It strikes me that maybe that's what a Liberal is. Maybe they're actually folks who aren't in power or in office to stand up for the people out there but for the big interests in the world. Maybe that explains why there wasn't a single piece of coherent criticism based on analysis or policy in the last hour and a half. Maybe it's because you don't actually believe in anything. Maybe you're in this room because they sent you here and, because you presumed
I have not heard a single thing that you believe in. Let me ask: did anyone here hear anybody there say that it would be a good idea to create Fisheries Renewal and enhance fish stocks, along with the communities, for the future of the province? Did anybody hear that?
Interjections.
Hon. C. Evans: Somebody did; that's right. What I heard was folks nitpicking apart what the people outside on the street there are asking for. I heard an hon. member say: "Oh no, don't do this; it'll look like Forest Renewal." I am hugely proud of Forest Renewal. We had people standing up over there
Hon. Speaker, I'll just wrap this thing up by saying that I, for one, believe that taking money out of the urban constituencies represented opposite, who presume to power, and putting it back into the rural communities who made the money with Forest Renewal was a brilliant, genius, brave step, and I'm proud of it. I, for one, think that repeating that process here today on behalf of fishing and coastal communities is the second-best thing I can remember us doing, and I thank you for the opportunity to say so.
I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 19, Fisheries Renewal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Evans: I call second reading of Bill 33.
BC BENEFITS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)
Each year thousands of B.C. parents are left economically disadvantaged by the breakup of a marriage or a common-law relationship. The resulting hardship can cause children to be raised in poverty, and the remaining parent faces significant challenges to care for her children and regain financial independence.
Many of these children live in the 41,000 families who rely on income assistance through my ministry and are eligible for court-ordered family maintenance payments from their former partners. Of these families, 39,000 are headed by one parent, more than 90 percent of whom are women; the remaining 2,000 families are two-parent families. Fewer than half have obtained maintenance orders, so fewer than half are eligible to benefit from the Attorney General's family maintenance enforcement program. In fact, only 7,200 have orders registered with the FME program, and of these about 60 percent of the non-custodial parents are currently behind in their payments.
[5:30]
Regular child support payments are vitally important to these families. The ability to rely on a stable income is key to being able to plan for the future. This legislation is designed to help parents whose non-custodial spouses are failing to live up to the responsibility to support their children. The B.C. Benefits Statutes Amendment Act will allow government to take action on behalf of all parents on income assistance who have court orders for maintenance payments.Fortunately, this is an opportune time in B.C. history of emphasize this point. The federal government has recognized the groundswell of public opinion against deadbeat dads in our society and brought in legislation to correct the problem. As of May 1 this year, amendments to the federal Income Tax Act have changed the rules. Child support will no longer be taxed as income to the recipients or be tax-deductible for the payer. This applies to all child support orders made or varied on or after May 1, 1997.
Changes to the federal Divorce Act include clear guidelines for the amount of child support payments based on income of the non-custodial parent. This change is likely to increase the dollar value of court-ordered maintenance payments right across Canada. That's good news for provincial welfare systems, as the income level for these families will rise. This will take the pressure off the public purse and put it where it belongs -- with the parent.
The Attorney General is seeking to amend B.C.'s Family Relations Act during the current session to reflect these changes in federal law. We now have those bills before the House. That ministry is also introducing penalties against parents who fail to make court-ordered support payments by strengthening the provisions of its Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. The Ministry of Human Resources supports these measures.
I'll take a few moments now to explain how the system works with respect to family maintenance and how this legislation will improve the current situation.
Two provincial programs currently work together to help parents obtain maintenance from non-custodial parents: the Ministry of Human Resources family maintenance program and the Ministry of Attorney General family maintenance
[ Page 6030 ]
enforcement program. The Ministry of Human Resources help custodial parents who wish to attain court orders for family maintenance. The Attorney General has the law enforcement arm of this service. It tries to ensure that those orders are paid.
All maintenance payments are eligible for a $100-a-month top-up. That means an extra $100 a month for each family. This measure was introduced as an incentive to non-custodial parents to assist their children by making their payments on time. B.C. is the only province in Canada to offer this incentive to parents to make regular family maintenance payments.
At the present time, although our clients' participation in our family maintenance program is strongly recommended by our workers, it is not a requirement. However, they must pursue maintenance by other means. Government will have the power to obtain a court order on parents' behalf, helping them get the maintenance money rightfully owed to them. Ministry of Human Resources family maintenance workers will assist in the process. Under the proposed new rules, parents on income assistance who are eligible for maintenance orders will be registered with the Ministry of Attorney General's family maintenance enforcement program. In doing so, government will relieve our clients, mostly women, from the lengthy stressful ordeal of pursuing maintenance on their own.
The support payments will then go directly to the family maintenance enforcement program. The family maintenance enforcement program then makes regular payments to the client through the Ministry of Human Resources, which will ensure that families on income assistance receive consistent support payments. Because those payments will arrive regularly, many more families will benefit from the monthly $100 maintenance top-up. If the maintenance payments fall behind or are in arrears, the family continues to be supported.
My ministry will maintain regular monthly payments to our clients, ensuring a stable, reliable environment for families. When those arrears are paid, often in a lump sum after several months, that money will go, first, to the custodial parent for the amount they are owed for that month, and second, to pay off any arrears owed to the parent. Then government will collect any arrears owed to it for the times it paid income assistance while the maintenance payer was in default.
We recognize that there are some relationships where violence is a potential -- violence from the ex-spouse directed against either the mother, the children or both. Let me assure you, hon. Speaker, that the safety of our clients is our highest priority. Government will defer any action to pursue those assigned rights if they are concerned about violence.
The changes we are proposing are consistent with the rules in the rest of the country. Nine provinces require custodial parents applying for welfare to enrol in their province's maintenance enforcement program. B.C. is the only province to allow the $100 maintenance top-up. When combined with the B.C. family bonus and the Healthy Kids program, regular family maintenance payments provide the stability to enable single parents to leave income assistance and become independent.
B.C. Benefits initiatives have already resulted in a 15 percent decline in the income assistance caseload of single parents since December 1995. They are consistent with recommendations by the 1995's Premier's forum, which recognized that, prior to reforms under B.C. Benefits, single parents were often financially better off on welfare than working. This meant that the parent -- usually a woman -- remained outside the labour market for an extended period. As a result, they often had rusty skills and shaky self-confidence when contemplating a return to work. Research shows that the less time a person spends outside the labour market, the greater the chance of getting and retaining work. However, B.C. Benefits initiatives encourage single parents to seek work rather than remain on welfare.
Here is an example of the additional income that a single parent with two children receiving maintenance payments of $300 a month per child would be eligible for after leaving welfare. With the help of the Ministry of Human Resources family maintenance program, that single parent would receive $600 for maintenance plus the B.C. family bonus of $206 for a total of more than $800 a month -- and transition-to-work benefits of up to $150 a month for one year for single parents who move to full-time employment. This does not include employment earnings, child care subsidies and tax credits.
These changes are good social policy, because they will effectively move many families towards economic security. Parents, not taxpayers, have the responsibility to support their children. Family breakup should not sentence children of the custodial parent to a life of poverty.
My ministry, in partnership with the Attorney General's family maintenance enforcement program, will work to ensure that non-custodial parents live up to their responsibilities. Regular family maintenance payments provide the stability that can enable single parents to make those key moves from welfare to work. Thousands more single parents will receive $100 each month. Regular maintenance payments will mean regular maintenance top-ups. The program assists women with problems associated with pursuing maintenance on their own, and it puts money into the hands of people who need it the most: low-income parents and their children. The safety of women and children will be protected. Government will not pursue maintenance payments if there are concerns about violence.
This legislation sends a strong message that it's not acceptable for parents to abandon the responsibility for their children to the state. Hon. Speaker, it's not acceptable to most British Columbians, and it's not acceptable to this government.
I move that Bill 33 be read a second time.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to offer some comments on second reading of Bill 33, BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.
Bill 33 is an enabling statute that allows the government, in conjunction with Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, to apply for, monitor and enforce court maintenance orders on behalf of income assistance recipients. The intent is to allow the government to recover income assistance costs from negligent parents -- the non-custodial parents for the most part -- who are not paying court-ordered maintenance payments.
In addition to recovering income assistance payments, Bill 33 will enable the government to establish cost recovery fees to pay for the enforcement of this legislation. These fees are to be charged to non-complying parents under the legislation.
To ensure participation of custodial parents, Bill 33 allows government to establish categories of persons who will not be eligible for income assistance unless they and their dependents assign to the minister any maintenance rights. I think the minister described the bill as embracing the principle that in
[ Page 6031 ]
cases of family breakup, it is the parents, not the provincial taxpayers, who have the primary responsibility for supporting children.
In conjunction with Bill 32, this legislation also tightens up both the income assistance and family maintenance systems. The principles of cost recovery are entrenched in this legislation. They appear to have no direct negative side effects, but I would offer the following comments on possible negative side effects of the legislation.
I think it's important to know that, although the ministry and this legislation are attempting to help families, it's unclear to me whether the motivation was to help the government financially. I think what you'll find is that once this program is put in place, there is a financial benefit to the province. I just wonder whether the idea for this legislation came from the idea to support families or the idea to have more money in government revenues.
I think what is necessary -- and the minister did allude to it -- is that the ministry still protect families from violence. I think one of my main concerns is that the instance of family violence -- a spouse not paying and threatening the custodial parent -- will have to be watched very closely. I think that's a potential for this legislation and something the minister has alluded to. I'm pleased to see that he is thinking in that direction.
I guess the obvious concern is that the government will not be able to resist the opportunity to charge fees in excess of cost recovery. I would hope that government doesn't do that, as we have seen with other pieces of legislation where the fees for maintaining a program are increased above what the cost really is.
The instances of a custodial parent being afraid to assign maintenance rights because of violence
The other question -- and I think I probably will address this in committee stage -- is the potential for excessive regulation. Will the legislation create more bureaucracy, or will the ministry use the private sector in some instances in this legislation?
I think the effect of the bill to create incentives for families to work through difficulties isn't there as yet. I believe it can be. I think one of the most important things that government can do for income assistance families is to try and make those families work together. Again, the minister alluded to that, and I'm pleased to see that. I think that when we have legislation like this, it's incumbent on us to offer programs that will support families, will allow families to work together, to work out their problems in as positive and progressive manner as they can. That, I know, is sometimes very difficult, and the minister will have to address those problems as they come up.
In general, the opposition is going to support this piece of legislation. We view it as having more positives than negatives. We will continue to watch closely with families who are involved in violence, to make sure that the ministry addresses that.
Mr. Speaker, I will have some more questions for committee stage but, seeing the hour, I'll thank you.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, we've had in a series of bills -- 31, 32 and 33
[5:45]
I don't plan to speak a long time on it, but I do think that we need to address the issue of the principle of where we're headed on this kind of issue generally. In principle, I think that the difficulty we have to grapple with -- as people who are looking toward putting in place public policy -- is the recognition that there is an obligation and responsibility of government to look after the interests of children and children who are in the care of the custodial parent where the custodial parent has limited income and therefore is on income assistance. A part of that income assistance requirement is the maintenance and management of his or her offspring, and the extent to which the government should then play a role in determining how the amount of payment that is outstanding, or the question of arrears, is going to be dealt with.As the member from Saanich just alluded to, if in fact there is an assignment of maintenance rights to the minister and there is a series of issues set up in terms of the eligibility of how that assignment is made, then we really have to ask ourselves the extent to which the government is prepared to become advocate for this particular individual in what is generally considered -- I think most of us would agree -- a situation where there is a confrontational style at work. I mean, the whole nature of the way that the Family Relations Act is working right now is confrontational. There tend to be two sides to the argument, and one has to be very careful, I think, with respect to how government weighs in to become the advocate on one side or the other.
I don't think anybody would argue the principle that suggests that children have to be adequately funded and looked after; I don't think there's anybody arguing that. Certainly I'm not arguing that. Neither, I don't think, would there be anybody in this chamber arguing that there is not an obligation of a non-custodial parent to pay a certain amount of money in support of their offspring. I just don't think that's an issue to be argued with: that has to be done.
But where I think we have to be enormously careful is the extent to which legislators, through legislation such as Bill 33 -- and to a degree Bill 32, because that's the mechanism by which the collection of this money can be accomplished
The reason I say that is because if we look at what's going on right now, for example, in legal aid services
[ Page 6032 ]
I think the difficulty
The minister talked about the frustration that boils over to anger and the fact that there is a lot of violence that becomes a functional part of this. I think the minister constantly alluded to the fact that those who will be assisted primarily through this bill will be women, and I don't take issue with that. But the problem is that we are not going to solve the systemic and root cause of the difficulty -- and that is the cycle of poverty that occurs -- by looking to one or the other and saying: "We are now going to put in place some measure of collection which is so punitive or provides such greater hardship on those who simply can't afford to pay that it pushes them over the line." We see this all the time.
So in principle, I have to argue whether or not we really want to put government in an advocacy position, because that's the way it will be seen to be. Whether or not the minister will agree with that interpretation, my guess is that that's the way it's going to be seen out there in the community. While it may accomplish what we are trying to accomplish in the sense of being able to get money to children -- and that's laudable; I think all of us can agree that that's great -- it will also really exacerbate the confrontation between one side that believes it doesn't have the resources to adequately defend itself in court, because there's no mechanism for them to have that legal opinion, and the other side, which now sees the government as its primary advocate. So I caution the minister with respect to that, and I'd be anxious to hear what the minister's views are.
A second issue, and I'll very briefly allude to it -- again it comes to a question of principle -- is the matter of assignment of maintenance rights to the Crown. As legislators I think we have to be enormously careful with respect to the degree to which government can allow that assignment of rights to occur. I think this is a thin edge with respect to public policy direction, because it allows the government not only to be seen as an advocate but also to be seen essentially as a ward. I really think we have to be careful about this. We have to think this thing through very carefully, not just in terms of the amount of money -- I understand that this is going to provide some opportunity financially, and the minister is probably quite correct that it is going to have a positive financial effect on a number of single parents, predominantly women -- but, I think, on a question of principle and of public policy decision-making. Whether or not the Crown should be seen in that advocate role and also then find itself in the way of ward, I really question. And I think we need to think this thing through very carefully.
So if this does go forward and is adopted, as I'm assuming it will with the majority on the other side -- and I don't hear much opposition from the Liberals -- I hope that those two issues will be duly noted. We will watch with great care to make sure that we don't cross lines that are going to be extremely difficult for us to come back from if we find that in fact that they have a less socially desirable effect than was intended.
With that, I will take my seat and allow the minister to close debate.
Hon. D. Streifel: In some respects, the two members that spoke on this had very similar positions. The member for Saanich North and the Islands wasn't clear about the motivation behind the bill and whether it would be of financial benefit to the province or whether it would be an assist or an aid to families. I can understand that the member for Saanich North and the Islands would be unclear on the bill. As he has explained to me many times, the Liberal opposition doesn't have a policy on social services, human resources or any of that.
It first came to light in an episode of "Voice of the Province," where the member said that they had abandoned the platform of spring 1996. They had walked away from it and were going to take the next 18 months to two years to consider a policy. As a minister, I guess I probably don't have a critic over there if they don't have a policy or an opposite position; but I am pleased that the member will demonstrate his support for this bill in the committee forum, at committee stage. Maybe I let the cat out of the bag. Maybe the member hasn't yet told his House Leader that they don't have a policy in this area.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm nice.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I expect, will examine the bill very carefully and very studiously in committee stage to ensure that he can deliver to his constituents the protection from government he feels they need on these issues. I believe that's what his motivation in life is. A bit unfortunately, most of what the member spoke about falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Attorney General and the court system. But the member is exactly right: this is enabling legislation that will allow the family maintenance workers in my ministry to apply for family maintenance orders on behalf of their clients as they come forward, thereby seeing increased economic support from a non-custodial parent through to the children.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 33.
Motion approved.
Bill 33, BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
The Speaker: Government House Leader
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I would never neglect Committee A, as I chaired it for three years. I realize how important Committee A is.
[ Page 6033 ]
I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING
(continued)
On vote 22: minister's office, $451,000 (continued).
A. Sanders: Last Friday, when we were in estimates concerning the K-to-12 budget, we discussed changes in the operating budget for the current year. Specifically, we looked at changes in enrolment and how the operating budgets had differed based on calculations for '97-98 in comparison to '96-97. We talked about the percentiles of what were described as efficiencies. We got to the point where the minister was going to provide this member with a spreadsheet on the figures for the dollar increases and decreases per pupil in the school districts -- the 42 that got decreases and the 17 that got increases. At that point we had the weekend to do other things, and here we are again.
What I'd like to start with, in continuing with the operating budget, is to look at adult basic education. Specifically, the ministry made a 5 percent cut to adult basic education for adult learners in the K-to-12 system. Where does the minister anticipate that school boards will find that 5 percent savings?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Most school districts see their adult basic education operations as a way where they can actually create some revenue to subsidize other operations. We've asked both the public education system and the post-secondary sector to deliver adult basic education services more efficiently. We believe they can do that either within their own institutions or, I think more appropriately, by working together within a region to make sure that they're serving the maximum number of students with the dollars available.
A. Sanders: By that answer, my intuition tells me that that means, in real terms, that the minister wants the school boards to work with the other institutions providing post-secondary ABE in order to find efficiency savings. Is that interpretation correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's surely part of what I'm asking them to do. In fact, we'll be looking at further regional coordination and planning for adult basic education services in the future.
A. Sanders: In areas where there is no post-secondary ABE, how do school boards find those savings?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In a couple of ways. First, I would be interested in hearing of any college that doesn't offer adult basic education; it's part of their legislated mandate.
The second point I will make, as I said earlier, is: adult basic education is a net revenue-generator for school boards. We believe they can offer and can continue to offer adult basic education at a very significant level with reduced funding.
A. Sanders: Was there a 5 percent cut made to those institutions providing post-secondary adult basic ed in addition to the 5 percent cut that the school districts got?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me just say this: I'm not quite sure we can distinguish post-secondary ABE from K-to-12 ABE. In many cases, the curricula are identical or very close to identical. The student population is very similar in a whole bunch of ways. The outcomes are identical. So we have different institutions, school districts and colleges offering the same program in various formats. The delivery agent may differ; in many cases, the service is quite, quite similar.
The member asked whether post-secondary institutions -- if I may phrase it this way -- are also required to deliver services more efficiently. The answer is yes. A college is committed to serving 5 percent more students within the same ABE budget.
A. Sanders: Okay, that helps. So what we're looking at here is that the school districts were given 5 percent less funding to provide what can be an income-generating activity, which is getting ABE going and having their local people go through the school board program. At the same time, and often in the same town, people have the option of going to the post-secondary ABE, and they have made the commitment to improve, by 5 percent, the number of students they're educating or whatever. The difference I'm not quite sure of, and I need the minister to explain it to me.
My understanding is that at the school district level, those who are doing ABE are not being charged a fee -- they are doing it through the K-to-12 system -- whereas those who are going to Okanagan College, for example, are paying approximately $700 per semester. If that is the correct interpretation, how is the school district generating money from adult basic education when it is not a circumstance where people are paying tuition?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a revenue-generator for school districts because, on the basis of a number of reports that have been done on offering adult basic education services, it's clear that it costs the school district less per student to deliver those services than they are funded for.
A. Sanders: Does the minister have any plans to turn adult basic education over solely to post-secondary institutions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
A. Sanders: Does the hon. minister have any plans to decrease the importance of ABE at the school district level in favour of post-secondary institutions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The obvious and very short answer is no. ABE offered through the school districts is very important. It enrolls a significant proportion of adults who return for a second chance at completing a secondary school education.
[ Page 6034 ]
The challenge that my ministry is grappling with -- and I will say a few words on this for the member -- is that because this one ministry used to be two, we have had, in various areas of the province, a patchwork of adult basic education services growing up, funded by various arms of the provincial and at times the federal governments.
I'll give the member an example from my own riding, because I don't think it's unique in the province. In Prince George, if you dropped out of school and wish to go back and get secondary-level education in order to continue on to post-secondary, you can do that through the school district, and district 57 offers that service. You can do it through a community skills centre, which has its own board. You can do it through the Open Learning Agency, of course, and the Open School. You can do it through the College of New Caledonia, and the Elizabeth Fry Society and the Native Friendship Centre offer adult basic education. If you're unfortunate enough to go to the regional correction facility, you can complete your secondary schooling there.
Now, the point is not that each institution is doing a bad job. I think they're all doing a good job of serving the students that they attract. What I am concerned about is the coordination and planning of how those services are delivered: by whom and for what target clientele. To date, I don't think there is either a level playing field among the various systems as they attract funds or the best use of the combined resources of that system, which is quite significant, in a regionally planned and regionally delivered way.
A. Sanders: I understand what you said, but the minister hasn't answered my question. The question is: does the minister plan, through increased efficiencies, to have the role of the school districts in ABE decreased to the benefit of the university or other post-secondary institutions or any other institutions? Or is he planning to keep things in the status quo as they exist at this time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One thing I will not commit to is freezing the entire adult basic education system in ice and pretending that the current way we're delivering it in every region of the province is the best possible way. What I am concerned about is making sure that we're maintaining and improving access across the province for the benefit of students who need secondary-school completion or secondary school-level work in order to pursue a career or further education. The goal there is not to take away from one or benefit another; there are no plans to do that. The goal there is to say: "We need to look region by region and on the ground to make sure that we're doing the most we can to maintain access -- indeed, improve access -- for students who require this service."
[2:45]
A. Sanders: You know, it's sometimes difficult to be in a circumstance where we are in a parliamentary situation and use the third person to discuss instances of concern with each other. So I think what I'll try and do in order to cut down the time is really look at what was going on last fall. As the Education critic, I received a tremendous outpouring of concern from school districts around the province. This was primarily because the ministry had let the school districts know, although it was not in a finalized form, that the ministry was planning to cut the amount of funding for ABE at the school district level and that in fact the ministry was intending to give more of a role to the post-secondary areas in order that ABE would be done at the post-secondary level.School boards in areas such as Quesnel and Vanderhoof, which do not have a support network of a large university as we have here in Victoria -- or as I am fortunate enough to have in Vernon through OUC -- became very concerned that they were going to have what you call their income-generating aspect taken away. I suppose they use that to cushion to a certain degree the amount of cuts that have occurred to their budgets over time.
There was also concern that the minister had a conflict in that he himself was an ABE teacher at the university level, and perhaps that was the incentive for why he would view that service as being better done there. Again, hon. Chair, these are hearsay issues, but the reason I'm asking the question is that it needs to be put on the table so we can get on with what we're talking about here. And I guess what we're talking about is: what is the underlying plan in the ministry? So when we leave here and school goes back in, we don't go through the big concern from school boards once again about what the ministry is doing in terms of adult basic education. I think most people can cope with anything when they know what the rules are -- when you've described what the playing field is and talked about evening it out and so on and so forth.
When you say that you are looking to make this more efficient and that you are looking at the myriad of different services that provide ABE to try to make those work together, what are the minister's actual plans for ABE in the next year? Are there any incentives to move things from the status quo to something else? If there are, what are those plans? It's not in my mind whether the plans are right or wrong; it's more a question of what is going on. People will start asking questions: "Does the minister have an interest in having ABE go to the colleges and getting it out of the school districts? Should it be taught only at the college level and thereby have tuition? Who influences the minister in terms of where ABE is best instructed?" This is an opportunity for the minister to answer those questions so that they're on the public record, and he doesn't have to be bothered by them again.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me say this as clearly as I can. We're debating the estimates for '97-98, really, for the school and academic year. There are no plans to change anything in the way adult basic education is delivered.
The member asked a whole range of other questions and made a couple of misstatements of fact that I'd just like to correct her on. For a period of three and a half years, from January of '79 until the summer of '82, I held the position of director of adult basic education at the College of New Caledonia. I assume that's what the member is referring to when she said that I was an instructor of adult basic education. When I ran for and obtained election in 1991, I was then an instructor at the College of New Caledonia. I think that's what she's referring to. I might be interested in hearing if there's something else lurking out there.
Let me be clear. We need to make sure that the emphasis of what we're doing is on making sure that the opportunity and the foundation are there for people who require a second chance at completing a secondary education -- and the great majority are youth under the age of 24. So my objective is to harmonize the two systems. There are two large systems and a variety of other contractors around the edges. That remains the objective: to eliminate overlapping duplication where it exists and to make sure that we're getting good, solid regional planning in place.
The member may have heard that I have asked a former senior public servant, Mr. Claude Heywood, to consult with
[ Page 6035 ]
colleges and school districts and others on how to achieve those objectives and to report to me by the end of September of this year.
Let me say again, in conclusion, that there are no plans in this fiscal year to change the way adult basic education is delivered or funded or to change the fees charged to students or the financial assistance that's available to students.
A. Sanders: So what we're looking at in adult basic ed is that there are no big surprises. I'm sure that will be good news to many of those people who were wondering about the next fiscal year.
In terms of operating budgets, I have a few short snappers for the minister. I want to have a delineation of the following areas as to location and/or program under operating contributions to public schools. There are a number of areas that I am interested in, in terms of where to find these. The first is technology. There was $10.7 million earmarked for technology. At what location and/or program under operating contributions to public schools would I find technology?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's under operating contributions to public schools.
A. Sanders: The second one is ESL grants for new students, and it is an amount of, I believe, $2.45 million.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The same budget line.
A. Sanders: The third one is pay equity.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Same line.
A. Sanders: The next one is adult ESL grants: $0.9 million.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Same budget line.
A. Sanders: The next one is "Grants to Employer Association." Also, could the minister explain to me what that actually means?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I assume that the member is referring to BCPSEA, the B.C. Public Schools Employers Association. It's funded 50 percent by grants directly from the ministry through operating contributions and 50 percent by grants from school districts. It comes out of the same budget line. Each party contributes $1.5 million.
A. Sanders: The last one is accreditation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Same line.
A. Sanders: Accreditation was brought up on Thursday night very, very briefly. I am not going to spend a lot of time on it here, but I just want to have the minister comment on something he told me at that time. We had been talking the first night about increased FTEs in education programs and whether these FTEs were going to undertake any of the funding and accountability work for the comptroller general report and what their mandates would be.
One of the things the minister had mentioned was that the FTEs in the assistant deputy's area were going to be working on the accreditation process under "Operating Budget." In "Operating Contributions to Public Schools" there is the line item of accreditation, at $4.7 million. Because of three things, I'd just like to touch on this one question on accreditation. Number one, the minister has outlined that accreditation will be one of the highlighted areas for outlining accountability in the ministry for this year. Number two, accreditation has a full value of $4.7 million. Number three, the minister would like to see the ministry overhaul the accreditation process.
I guess I need to clear this up from last year, because I feel it's very important now that we're here and our minds are on it. In one of the original budget decreases, we were looking for $0.78 million in savings. The notion put forward to the ministry was to can accreditation last year for a total savings of $0.24 million, which is very, very small. Schools around the province were told that their accreditations were to cease and desist, even though a number of them were in place. I'm wondering what has changed over the past six months in terms of the philosophical approach to accreditation that has got us from around Christmas '96, finding that accreditations were being canned, to now, when accreditation is something of importance.
[3:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are many things I could say, but I'm not sure I will. I'll only say this: I do believe that school-based accreditation is an important part of accounting for public funds in a way that can involve parents and the community in assessing the education provided in the community to the children. The amount in this year's budget reflects that commitment.The other thing I would say is that, as the member probably knows, we have done a review and assessment of how accreditation is done in a serious attempt to deal with some of the critics of the process who, I think appropriately, found it time-consuming and repetitious and not necessarily focused on criteria that meant a lot to parents and to their children. As a result of that, we hope that accreditation will become less of an event that drops on your school once every five or ten years and more of a continuing process that assesses the educational services that are provided
We've reduced to 33 the number of criteria to be considered. They deal with students' development of important skills, the acquisition of content and knowledge, and the ability of programs to meet diverse needs. For each, schools are expected to demonstrate the opportunities they are providing students and what their indicators of that performance are. Indicators of performance tie very directly into some of the other, larger accountability measures that are being undertaken.
As we talk, there are 147 schools that began or underwent accreditation in the last fiscal year. Those schools will be provided with a second year of funding -- that's around $2.5 million. In the coming year 247 schools will undergo accreditation, and their budget is $2.2 million. So that makes up the $4.7 million.
A. Sanders: Does the minister feel that school accreditation is an important process?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I just said that.
A. Sanders: The minister said that it was an important process but that it needed to be changed. So I was wondering whether he felt that the underlying philosophy of having accreditation is important.
[ Page 6036 ]
Is it true that the BCTF sent the ministry a note thanking them for canning the accreditation of $0.24 million last year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I was not minister when such correspondence would have occurred.
A. Sanders: Is the minister aware of such correspondence?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
A. Sanders: My understanding from talking to different groups is that the Teachers Federation is very unhappy with the accreditation process. Whether that has great influence on the ministry remains to be seen. Parents have a very important role to play, as well, in terms of how they view accreditation. I would suggest that this is an area that would be a very important one to update and that the vehicle to use to improve the accreditation process would in fact be the standing committee of the House on education. If they ever meet in the duration of time that I'm here as an MLA, that would be a perfect opportunity for such a committee to look at the process and improve the way it's done.
I'd like to talk a bit about special purpose grants. Special purpose grants total about $7.7 million, and they are provided as a one-third phase-out from the grants provided to the 1996-97 budgets to ensure that no district suffered a negative impact as a result of changes in the funding allocation system from the 1995-96 and '96-97 budgets. Could the minister outline for this member his interpretation of special purpose grants, how those came to be and what the specific utilization of those was to be?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I want to reflect on the member's comments around accreditation and thank her for the suggestion that this is an initiative of sufficient importance that it deserves even broader scrutiny and public involvement. I believe it's important. I will ask the ministry to provide the member with some written material on the results of the review and revision of the accreditation process that has taken place in the last 12 months. I think it provides a more streamlined way of doing this process on the ground.
Special purpose grants were first introduced in the '95-96 fiscal year. The goal of the special purpose grants was to allow school districts a chance to plan for the phasing-in of some significant changes to the funding formula over a period of years. Originally the special purpose grants were kept at 100 percent of the allocation to school districts that would be affected by changes to the formula. This year that portion is being reduced by one-third. As I said, school districts have known since 1995-96 that the ministry's plans were to phase in the funding formula.
School districts, in agreeing to this, have said very clearly that they recognize that the formula does provide a more equitable way of ensuring funding for the K-to-12 system, but that in the movement from the old system to this one, they need time to plan and respond. The special purpose grants are the vehicle for allowing them that time.
A. Sanders: Which districts got the grants?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Lots. I'm not sure of the best way to do this. I think the best way may be to simply provide you with the spreadsheet that shows you who got how much. Obviously, in the phase-out of this, it affected rural and remote districts more highly than it did urban districts. Therefore areas like -- oh, just to take one at random -- Vernon received almost $172,000, while Surrey did not.
A. Sanders: How are the grants calculated?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You take the funding formula and what it would have generated for that district before the formula changes; you take the funding for the district and the formula after the changes have been made; you subtract one from the other and reduce that difference by one-third.
A. Sanders: I would appreciate the spreadsheet for the grants from the minister, as he seems not to have a problem with giving that to me.
What accountability exists for these grants?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This goes to districts as part of their operating grant in any year, with the same measures that are applied to other school district operations.
A. Sanders: The amount of $2.95 million was provided for the February 28, 1998, increase in the transitional collective agreement with teachers. Could the minister please explain this figure?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The transitional collective agreement provides for a 1 percent lift in salary for BCTF members, effective March 1, 1998. The amount that the member references covers that increase for a period of one month -- March 1998 -- which is included in this fiscal year.
A. Sanders: What's the capital envelope for 1997-98?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's $300 million.
A. Sanders: What is the increased expenditure for debt servicing as a result of the '97-98 envelope?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I find that I can't give the member a figure which would be the impact on this year's budget. The $300 million is funds that are going to be allocated and spent over the 12 months of this fiscal year. What I can say is that in subsequent fiscal years the impact on debt servicing, once the $300 million is truly spent, will be in the area of $28 million to $30 million a year.
A. Sanders: When we look at the capital envelope, you know, we had a $275 million one for '96-97. Now it's $300 million. It's now almost the end of July. Have we spent any of this envelope? Has there actually been any capital development?
[3:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: To date, $193 million of capital expenditure has been approved by Treasury Board for specific projects.A. Sanders: Of that $193 million that's been approved, has anything actually been built? I know it may be approved, but have we actually even started anything in British Columbia in terms of the actual shovel in the ground?
[ Page 6037 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The process of planning and constructing schools is a rolling process, as the member knows. Right now in British Columbia there are 22 facilities under construction from previous capital budgets -- not yet opened but will be opened this fall. We could run through the list of those that are scheduled to go to construction this year and ones that have already begun construction. The great majority have gone to tenders in the last month to six weeks. The anticipation is that we'll get the remainder of the money approved by the remainder of the summer or early fall.
A. Sanders: I recognize that there are schools that were already in the other capital envelopes, which are being constructed as we speak. But what I'm looking for is: within the $300 million capital envelope we have for this year, have any of those projects at this time gotten started?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Most of the ones I reference are June-July tenders, so they haven't gone to construction yet. Of the ones that have, Fernie has and Williams Lake Secondary has -- and probably a couple more, for which we're not quite sure when the tenders closed and when the contract was actually awarded.
An Hon. Member: Whose riding?
A. Sanders: Whose ridings? The hecklers are here.
So if I go to Fernie and Williams Lake, there will actually be dirt that has been moved, from this year's capital projects.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have eye-witness verification from staff to my right.
A. Sanders: We are glad to see that two NDP ridings are having dirt moved around.
Interjections.
A. Sanders: Unfortunately, hon. Chair, the minister and I are getting to know each other very well through this process.
Debt servicing for last year
Hon. P. Ramsey: The increase for this year is the amount that's shown in the blue book, which is around $9 million. One of the reasons it's not higher, of course, is because during the '96-97 fiscal year we did have the capital freeze and the project review process. That had a definite curtailment effect on expenditure of capital funds.
A. Sanders: The one good thing about not building any schools is that you actually don't get any increase in your debt servicing. I guess that's what we can say about the '96-97 year with the $9 million expenditure. Hopefully, there will be something built in British Columbia before we're back here next March to go through this again.
An Hon. Member: Specifically in Liberal ridings.
A. Sanders: Specifically in somebody's riding. I don't really care where, as long as there's something built somewhere that I can point at and say that this is what the government has done.
Enrolment growth of 1.8 percent has occurred in containment centres, distance education and hospital programs. I specifically bring this up because it is part of the special purpose grant spectrum. Could the minister please explain for my benefit -- I don't know if anyone else is sure of the answer -- what a containment centre is?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Are we going to come back to capital at some point?
A. Sanders: Yeah.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay, then I'll save my comments on the results of the freeze and the project review for later. We touched on it briefly last week, and we'll touch on them again.
The resource program funding that the member talks about
The education is provided in those facilities as well as in drug treatment centres. The educational component of services that a young person would receive in those centres, even though it is a Justice-run facility or a Health-run facility or one funded through the Ministry for Children and Families, is provided out of this ministry's envelope.
A. Sanders: I guess that's not a particularly good statistic for having a 1.8 percent increase in enrolment in our drug treatment, correction and other things that come under the definition of containment centre, but I appreciate knowing, at least, where to look for that information.
We've had an increase in distance education. Could the minister explain what the ministry feels is the reason for that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The 1.8 percent increase in enrolment which the member references is the ministry's projection for increased enrolment in all of the public school settings. That's where we got the figure of approximately 10,703 additional students in `97-98. We don't know what the increase in students will be in these facilities that we just referenced. We have budgeted half a million dollars for increase either in number of students or in programs. I hope we don't have to use it.
A. Sanders: Again under the special purpose grants, could the minister please give me a brief outline of what the hospital program is and how it functions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I was just confirming my understanding of how the hospital-homebound program works. Students enrol in this program and register with this program with the ministry, so they register with it as a provincial program. In the last school year, there were 879 students registered in this program. The ministry then contracts with school districts for delivery of programs.
A. Sanders: Is this the same as the hospital-homebound program? Or is this a different program?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for her question. She helped me get a bit of confusion out of the way, because I think I did get a couple of programs mixed up.
[ Page 6038 ]
The provincial resource programs that we've been talking about are the ones that enrol 879. Those are the ones that are run in hospitals or other health facilities, and those are the ones that we contract with school districts for delivery of. I should not have used the hospital-homebound program name; that is a different program.
A. Sanders: What are the minister's plans for Passport to Education for the 1997-98 year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The total budget for the Passport program is around $10.5 million to $11 million this year. We could get the member more details. Regrettably, the person who was here last week when we were dealing with student financial assistance and who has responsibility for the program is not with us today. If the member wishes more details on how many stamps we expect to be issued on passports this year and how many we expect to have redeemed, and how that ties into the budget, I'd be glad to provide her with that. The Passport program is in place for the fiscal year that we're debating.
A. Sanders: I'm happy to look at Hansard for this area, if it's been canvassed. My interest was primarily in whether there was any will for this program to be downsized, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Again, for those who are watching who may or may not be aware, we are going in a logical order here. I'm talking about special purpose grants under the ministry budgets, and that will be followed by core grants and specific grants.
What is the forgivable loans to teachers in remote areas, and how are these funded?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget this year is about $1 million for this program, which assists teachers who have been hired to instruct in remote areas in paying off student loans.
A. Sanders: I'm just trying to figure out how I didn't know about this.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Okanagan ain't remote.
A. Sanders: What about the Kootenays? It was the Kootenays.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
A. Sanders: How are these forgivable loans funded?
An Hon. Member: What areas?
A. Sanders: And then, what areas?
[3:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I regret to tell the member opposite that this program is being phased out. No loan forgiveness has been approved for two years. It was a measure that was put in place at the time when there were teacher shortages and difficulty in attracting teachers, particularly for rural and remote areas -- say, Manson Creek. I regret to tell the member that she'll just have to go and teach there because she's interested in their area.A. Sanders: If this is being phased out, then there won't be much reason for me to dwell on it at this point.
Just one question on the Francophone Authority. Because of its position in special purpose grants, I will canvass this area more broadly, especially in view of the fact that we will be making changes to the School Act under these auspices.
What level this year will the Francophone Education Authority be funded at on the provincial level and what on the federal level?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget for the Francophone Education Authority for the '97-98 fiscal year is just over $17.5 million. Of that, $11.2 million is public school operating contributions from this ministry. There is also a portion of the special agreement under which the federal government provided startup lease acquisition and other costs to the authority. That contribution is $6.3 million this year.
A. Sanders: What is the per-pupil funding in francophone education?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The provincial portion of funding amounts to $7,008 per student.
A. Sanders: What is the per-pupil funding in independent schools?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, the funding differs, depending on whether it's a group 1 or group 2 school, and whether it's 50 percent or 35 percent. The per-student amount
A. Sanders: That's for the 50 percent of a group 1 student.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's an average of both.
A. Sanders: We're doing some interesting things in British Columbia. We're educating independent school children for $2,400 per student; we're educating our public school child for $5,700, approximately; and we're educating our francophone kids for $7,008 plus a federal contribution. That would be my understanding. It would be incrementally about the same amount.
Interjection.
A. Sanders: Okay. Just to put it into a full perspective here, what are we charging to educate foreign students in British Columbia in our public schools?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Deliverers of K-to-12 education for foreign students charge on a market basis. They seem to range between $10,000 and $18,000 per year. The public purse, as you know, does not pay for that.
A. Sanders: That's very interesting. Independent schools have grown 5 percent in terms of enrolment from April to June in 1997. What does the minister feel are the reasons for this incremental increase in enrolment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The 5 percent increase in the last school year is actually a decrease, staff inform me, from a couple of years ago, when increases were running at about 8 percent.
[ Page 6039 ]
As I think all members in the chamber know, people choose to send their children to a private school for a variety of reasons, and at this point, we're not able to sort out which of those reasons would primarily account for growth in the last school year.
A. Sanders: If public school operating budgets are decreased by 0.78 percent this year, my understanding is that this will also decrease the funding to independent schools, specifically because independent schools funding is calculated on the public schools base. Could the minister, number one, verify for me that I have the appropriate and correct interpretation of the information? Number two, does he feel that that's fair and just, in that the independent schools are independent? Should those two necessarily be tied together?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, we have asked the independent schools to take an economic adjustment of the equivalent of what's been happening in the public school budgets for this year. I think I'll stay away from fairness and justice at this point; we're debating a budget.
A. Sanders: Current funding for K-to-12 education is 20 percent of the total provincial government budget. We're looking at a very significant amount of money that we are discussing in these estimates. The funding allocation system provides funding to schools in three main areas in the form of grants. These are what we have talked about in the last little bit here: the general operating grants, which include the core and specific grants; the targeted grants; and the third is the developmental grants. I'd just like to go through these three areas of grants to look at the pertinent information relating to the '97-98 year.
First of all, I'd like to touch on the core grants. If core grants provide funding for essential education services such as classroom supplies and equipment, why are these basic tools so sadly lacking in some schools? I think this is a very important question, because we are talking about these being core grants, and yet I have been into schools where parent groups have raised significant amounts of money -- in the area of $20,000, $30,000 -- that have been used for things such as xerox paper.
I need to have for my own understanding some synthesis of those two very divergent pieces of information. Could the minister just give me an idea: if core grants are supplying essential education services, how does he correlate that information with what we see in terms of classroom supplies and equipment in some districts?
[3:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd say that from my experience it's clear to me that school districts around the province make a variety of decisions on how they allocate funding. Even within districts, it's been my experience that I'll find a range of how schools are being dealt with.This is one of the challenges, of course, for an education system in which accountability for funding and provision of education is shared between the ministry and school boards. The important thing is that both parties to that accountability seek to work together to make sure that the funds are going where I think we jointly agree that they should.
We discussed this last week. The member asked whether I was 100 percent satisfied with all the decisions that school boards had made for the coming school year, and I told her that I was not entirely satisfied and was seeking more information from some of them on the decisions that they had made about how they were achieving the amalgamation efficiency reduction that I'd asked them to attend to.
I will say this, and the member has heard me say this before: as an educator, I always recognize that there is a desire for more funds and more expenditures at a school level. I've been there, felt that, know that there are needs that could be met. As a chair of a parent advisory committee in the past that sold its share of chocolate-covered almonds and hot dogs, I also recognize the role that parents and parent groups make in fundraising for services and equipment that are not available in the time that they would wish from public funds.
But I also recognize that we have been able in this province to put, as the member says, a high priority on education funding. It does stand at one of the highest expenditures in government; it does stand, relative to other provinces, at the best per-student funding of any province in the country.
So, at the end of the day, what I will acknowledge is the need to continue to work with school boards: ask them to make sure that funds are going in the right ways, work with them in the ways that we discussed last week to make sure that we're putting best practices in place across the province and provide them with funding that remains at or near the best in the country -- this year, the best in the country.
A. Sanders: Well, we won't get into the philosophical arguments about the funding across Canada, seeing that British Columbia is in a circumstance which is much different from other provinces, in that we are very much increasing our population of K-to-12 individuals in society, contrary to other provinces where they are having quite a significant decrease in that particular age. Their demographic shift is causing them to not really be concerned about federal downloading to the same degree as we are -- because of the changes in the demographics of Canada and the changes that we are experiencing here in terms of in-migration and immigration. That's another topic for another day.
I'm just trying to get my head around the idea of core, because to me core means the things that are absolutely essential. Yet if schools do not have the basic things such as paper and materials for shop and art and home economics, then I'm trying to figure out where in the accountability structure we are not doing our job at the governance level. I agree that it is important for school districts to make decisions of their own. I think that lends to the flavour of the community. But I'm still trying to understand how you can go into a school that gets core funding or core grants, and yet they don't have a librarian, they don't have materials for art or for shop, and the school has to provide a list of school fees. Again, that's a whole other topic of discussion, as well. Is there something I'm missing here in terms of comprehension? Or is there some additional information that the minister can provide me to clarify the very large gap between the idea of a core grant and the actuality in the schools?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to agree with part of what the member said. We do face challenges in this province, and surely the rising school-age population is a challenge that we face, that our school districts face, that I and my staff face that other ministers of education across the country don't. In many areas of the country, we have a declining school-age population; in our province, quite the reverse is true. Even within our province, the challenge differs from school district to school district. There are school districts that will be faced over the next five years with a declining school-age population. On the other hand, we have districts that are rapidly growing, includ-
[ Page 6040 ]
ing Surrey, where clearly the need is for more schools and more student spaces. So it is not even across the piece even within our province.
I want to go back, because I think the member misunderstood one of the things I said. Yes, I am proud that our government has continued to increase school funding at a time when other governments have cut it. I think that is something that reflects the value for education that I think most British Columbians share. The statistic I was quoting, though, was not overall increases in funding. The point I was making was that per student, this province funds its school districts higher than any other province in the country. So while I agree with the member -- and we can discuss some of the challenges that individual school districts and individual schools have -- it is not because this government has not followed through on its commitment to make education funding one of our highest priorities. We are not at the bottom of the heap or even in the middle; we are at the very top in the amount of money we give our school districts to allocate for spending on our children's education.
It is not even
A. Sanders: A couple of points are important. You know, I think you get to be a bit of a pit bull when you're the critic, because the minister throws you a piece of meat, you grab onto it and you'd better hold on.
One of the things the minister said was that this government has increased funding every year for education. This is true, but we've decreased the per-student funding. Once that sort of struck home, and people recognized that in fact we had decreased $43 per student and hadn't funded for the increase in enrolment, the catchphrase changed to: "We're funding more per student than any other province in Canada."
Although I haven't been able to find the answer yet -- and not for want of looking -- what we need to look at in order to ascertain whether that figure is meaningful or meaningless is how much of that money is getting to the kid in the classroom. Until we have the answer to how much of that funding is getting to the child in the classroom, the overall amount you're spending per student is irrelevant. If we are not getting that money to the classroom, then as a parent, the figure is not important to me. Anyway, that will be another job for us to look at.
In terms of the core funding, I guess the importance here is what the minister has echoed to me. Why do those three schools in one school district not have enough paper for the service of students? Somehow there seems to be something wrong to me, as a parent, with the accountability framework that gets a school into a circumstance where we provide it with a core grant for basic services and then there's no paper for kids to use or for materials to be run off on.
I would suggest to the minister that this might be something the ministry should explain for his benefit, because I hear it quite commonly. When a parent group does raise $30,000 and that is used for xerox paper, though this money was part of a core grant, then I think there's a significant problem here somewhere -- that we are not looking at where that money is going. We have the responsibility as government to be able to say: "We funded the core grant here, and that money went into a core situation."
Again, just for the education of this member, what would be considered core in an area such as a library? What would the ministry give to the school district, saying: "This is your core grant for library; here's what you do with it." Give me an idea of how that accountability structure would work, so that I know that that core grant would go to a library.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member and I agree that the challenge here is to make sure as much money as possible gets into classroom services. Really, the goal of all of us -- whether it's those of us at the provincial level or those who are elected to make decisions at a school board level -- has to be to make sure that as much money as possible is flowing into classroom services. Some 77 percent of the budgets we give to school districts is spent on classroom services. Teachers' salaries -- and we've talked about teachers' salaries being 60 percent of services -- and then supplies and budgeting for other things that happen, go straight back to the classroom.
I must say, though, that this is a difficult one. The member asks what measures of accountability there are. Well, we do ask all districts to report on the education they're providing without getting into a level of detail that would simply make the school boards irrelevant and unnecessary. It's very hard to require the level of detail that the member seems to be asking for.
For example, I don't think it would be appropriate, nor do I have the staff, to ask school districts to account to me for how much paper each of 1,700 schools in the province has, nor do I require of districts that they account to me for how they staff libraries or ESL or other things, other than the targets we have for spending in some areas. At times this becomes difficult. It presents us with stories that are hard to figure out.
I'll give the member an example of one, because we're dealing with this in a relatively non-partisan way, that is the sort of thing that hits our desks every day. In the media, either today or over the weekend, I saw a story about concerns about what Vancouver had done and how it reorganized ESL services. There was a concern expressed by some about the board's decision in Vancouver to dismantle a district-level team dealing with ESL and to put those resources into school-level funding of ESL.
I'm sure this was a hard decision for those who were employed at the district level, a hard decision about what they valued greatly and were working on hard, and what they saw as a valuable support for ESL services in the district. Yet if you're at a school level teaching ESL students, this may have felt like the right way to deal with that budget within it. It is not easy, nor am I going to turn around and say to the Vancouver school board that they have to organize their ESL services in this particular way.
I see my role as saying to Vancouver and to others -- Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby and other school districts with high populations of ESL students: "Let's work together and see if we can find best methods, best practices, for providing ESL services that provide highest quality and do so in a way that's an efficient use of tax dollars." I welcome and accept the
[ Page 6041 ]
role of leadership that the ministry has to play in those areas. But in many areas this is the very great difficulty I have when I get, as I said, the cards and letters that the member opposite and indeed all of us get with concerns about individual programs or individual schools. I find myself having to resist the impulse to leap in and make it uniform, make it work with a sort of Victoria, one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach and tell the school boards how exactly they have to allocate their funding. I'll repeat again that doing that would require a level of interference in district decisions that would be inappropriate and that is, frankly, one that ministry staff couldn't support.
A. Sanders: I think the importance in looking at this for the benefit of the public is that what we have ascertained is that in the idea of core grant, there is no core accountability. In other words, if you look at
I guess that's what I was looking for as a parent. In other words, if a young person is going to require paper to complete a project, then that is one of the things that is paid for in the core grant, and I know that the school district is going to pay for that paper for my kid to do the projects, however many, over the year. If they go to art, they're not going have the ancillary fee stuff, which is a whole other topic, but the basics -- some kind of core list that school boards must provide and that I could actually look at as a teacher, a parent or a school board member, to say that these are the things we must provide before we go on to buy other things for the school district.
What I was trying to ascertain with the minister was whether such a list existed, and my understanding is that in fact it does not.
[4:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: We provide accountability for the money we spend on education in any number of ways. I think the challenge that we're facing is to increase our accountability. We talked earlier today about accreditation, and we have talked about that before. There are core curriculum requirements for students who are going to complete secondary school. There are provincial examinations that measure students' attainment of the curriculum in those subjects. There are overall indicators of how well students within our province are doing relative to other provinces and relative to other countries, and on most of those comparisons -- some of which I read into the record last week -- British Columbia students fare very well.We not only have accreditation, but we also require annual reports from school districts, and we require audits of how money was actually spent. I must say that though accountability rests with the provincial government, accountability also rests with local school boards. That's why the second phase of the comptroller general's work is going to be with school boards, looking at what measures they have in place and doing some of the things we're also talking about here.
So the core provides, as the member says, a huge range of services that we provide for our students. It provides everything from, at one end, assistance to a special education student -- let's say a hard-of-hearing student who is actually using technologically assisted means to master the curriculum -- to a grade 8 student learning how to work machines in a metal shop, to somebody who is enrolled in a secondary school apprenticeship, to the youngster from Hong Kong who is a recent immigrant and finds herself enrolled in a grade 1 class seeking to master the material, the language and the intricacies of social interaction in Canada.
A. Sanders: With the 0.78 percent deficiency to districts, has this decreased core funding as well?
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: After consultation with the school districts about how to do the technical work of requiring this $27 million reduction in areas of administration, transportation and support, the advice -- and our decision -- was not to roll this out in a way that there are line-by-line reductions in their budgets. That would have been a serious intrusion on the authority and accountability of local boards. Let me say it again: the best figures we have suggest that over $800 million is spent every year by school districts on services that are not the core of classroom activities that you and I and the general public value so highly. We have asked our school districts to find, within that $800 million, $27 million of efficiencies. The school districts themselves worked with us in helping set that target, during the public education restructuring consultation work, and set out a long list of opportunities to get efficient in reduction of services within amalgamated districts or to share services among districts. That is the area that I expect schools and school boards to target in finding the efficiency reduction that we've been talking about.
A. Sanders: Were there any districts that got increases in core funding in '97-98?
Hon. P. Ramsey: All districts have received an increase in core funding to cover the teachers' collective agreement. All districts received increases to cover increased enrolment.
A. Sanders: The increase in core funding to cover teachers and enrolment would only be for the '97-98 budget. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Oh dear, hon. Chair, and here I'd hoped we were going to avoid this one. The school boards got the school year, which I think is what the member is referring to. So when I talk about a $27 million reduction, or when the member talks about the impact of that on per-student funding, we are talking about school year funding. What the blue book that we're actually debating reflects is part of last year's school year and the majority of next year's school year, to the end of March.
A. Sanders: I'm not sure whether that answers my question or not. The core funding increase
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again, then.
A. Sanders: Okay.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The amount that we're debating, the amount that had been granted to school districts and that
[ Page 6042 ]
we've been referencing in spreadsheets and were talking about, you know
A. Sanders: The Premier gave the BCTF a 2 percent increase after not arriving at any formal sufficient negotiation between the school districts and the B.C. Teachers Federation. This was done last year prior to the election, from the best I can tell, to avoid any confrontation during an election period.
Last year, what in fact we did with the budget was that for the school districts we provided the $27 million, I believe it was, that they required last year in order to fund the first 1 percent of that 2 percent increase over two years. This year in this budget, we have again given the school districts the increase in core funding to provide for the percentile increase in teachers' salaries negotiated by the Premier for the two-year period.
What I'm interested in is: when that two years is up, which will be within this budget year, what's the next step for those school districts? Where is the money going to come from? The raise isn't going to go away. Is it going to be in and stay in the base? Or are there some other creative ways to do this, to provide some help for the school districts?
[4:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The TCA, the transitional collective agreement, was indeed negotiated a touch over a year ago. I think the BCTF would be surprised to hear that they were "given" anything, but maybe the member has sources in the BCTF that I don't. I want to read this into the record because it's important to be precise about these: the 2 percent increase that the member references amounted to an increase of 0.2 of 1 percent, effective September 1, 1995, because there had been no agreement reached for that period; an increase of 0.8 percent -- again, a fraction of 1 percent -- on March 31, 1996; no increase in any portion of 1997; and a 1 percent increase on March 1, 1998. That is the shape of this three-year deal.The member may characterize it as she wishes. It fits well within guidelines for other public sector workers. The member asked
A. Sanders: That clarifies the question.
Looking at specific grants
The first question to the minister. Having looked at a number of the schools in British Columbia and the very wide range and differentiation between the kinds of schools that we have to educate our kids in B.C., in those areas where schools are very dilapidated, do the districts get budget allowances to repair schools, above and beyond
Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts receive $34 million a year for these purposes -- to keep older facilities in shape. It's allocated on the basis of the number of facilities and their age. So I think it is driven by the appropriate factors.
With your permission, hon. Chair, and noting the time, I would as Minister of Education like to declare a ten-minute recess, if I could.
The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
A. Sanders: Before we left we were talking about specific grants, and the minister had indicated that $34 million per year was allocated for facilities that were significantly dilapidated in order to reconstruct, and that this was based on the age of the facilities, etc. Again -- taking the role of a taxpayer, I guess -- I think the question that needs to be answered by the minister on behalf of British Columbians has to go something like this: if we are in an area where these are grants to schools to keep our schools in reasonable shape, why are so many of our schools in such significant disrepair, and how did they arrive at that point?
I will start by looking at Magee. Just briefly, for the benefit of those people who have the interest to read what is discussed here in the estimates of the Ministry of Education, can the minister give me just a brief outline of how Magee got to be the way it is? I have visited the school, and I'm sure he has, as well.
[4:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts spend around 12 percent of their budget on maintenance and renovation. That's very close to the North American average. Schools get old. They outlive their useful life and do need to be either significantly renovated or replaced. I think that occurred with Magee.The other thing that sometimes happens
A. Sanders: I had the occasion to visit a number of schools this year, and another one that I was very concerned about, as a parent with a child who has quite significant and severe asthma as well as atopic medical conditions, was Earl Marriott. I think that if I, as a parent, lived in the catchment area for Earl Marriott school, my one child would not be able to attend this school. Can the minister give me an idea of how he feels Earl Marriott got to the significant substandard condition that that school was in?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Out of necessity, staff deal with this at a fairly broad level, and I don't have a specific briefing note on Earl Marriott. I would point out to the member that in the other envelope -- not the maintenance and reno stuff, but in minor capital -- we're spending around $42 million this year on everything from roofs to mechanical upgrades to whatever.
[ Page 6043 ]
A number of schools are undertaking ventilation projects to improve air quality under that envelope. I'm aware of a couple, as I imagine the member for Prince George-Omineca is, in district 57 in our community, where air quality
So, you know, we're working as hard as we can with districts not only to replace schools that have clearly outlived their useful life span but also to make sure that appropriate renovation and maintenance is done. The 12 percent figure suggests that the money allocated is in tune with what's widely recognized in North America as an appropriate amount to maintain the inventory of schools. We're also working with school districts to plan, in as systematic a way as we can, for minor capital projects and, where necessary, replacements or additions.
A. Sanders: I think there's an interesting
Or why is it that they are at a school where there are so many levels -- such as one of the schools in the hon. Chair's area, Oaklands Elementary -- that if they were wheelchair-bound children, I don't think they could go to more than one classroom, let alone get into the school at all. Or why is it, going to Magee and seeing the wallpaper ripped off in areas where the light fixtures haven't been replaced
I think what the average person in British Columbia wants to know is what's going on. They want to know how we got there. Although the question is very, very simple and certainly is not one that we consider here that often, when we're looking at estimates, I think these are the questions we should be focusing on -- and focusing on answers to those for the public. They don't really care if there's been $42 million spent in minor capital; they want to know how come there's a sewage outlet in the middle of the playground and, if they moved to that district, would their kid have to go to school there and would there be a risk to them?
So I think sometimes, when we get into the complexity that we are very familiar with in dealing with the budget, we're not answering the questions that people ask us. I think there's a real need to bring the conversation down to the level where we can give them a very good answer for why these things occur in B.C., and why, or why not, we as the government do not have some kind of interventional way to deal with those, so that all kids can go to schools that are physically safe and scientifically healthy for those children.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much to the member for her questions. I'll say this: first, I think the answers are probably in many cases as specific as the problems. The school that you're talking about in Parksville is part of a project this year -- the `97-98 fiscal year -- which we think will deal with it. The reality is that demand is extremely high, and in places there is significant pressure on our ability to meet it. Despite this, we are doing well.
I've often quoted the number of dollars -- $1.7 billion and counting -- that this administration has spent on new schools and major renovations to provide additional quality space for the great number of students we have coming into our province. Does this solve all of the problems in the short term? No. B.C. is the fastest-growing province in terms of school enrolment; therefore we need to deal with this in a comprehensive way, to address it over time.
Part of the solution is building more schools with the money we have, and that was the entire purpose of the capital freeze and the revised construction guidelines that we have in place. Part of it is working very closely with school districts to see which projects should be dealt with through minor capital and through renovations, so that we don't find schools falling into disrepair and needing replacement before the end of their actual life span as buildings. We're working very hard on that, as well.
The member asks where the problem started. Part of the problem is far more than a decade old. The member is a longtime resident of
I was asking some of my staff about this recently. We were talking about our $300 million capital plan for this year and how it compared to others in the past. In the not too distant past, as recently as the mid-1980s, the entire capital budget for the Ministry of Education was $25 million. School construction virtually stopped, from the restraint program in '83 into the late 1980s. So in some cases, I would submit, we are dealing with situations that have arisen because of, really, a failure to invest some of the necessary money in keeping schools up to speed then.
That problem is there. There's no sense in trying to say that something else should have been done, when the reality is that we're dealing with the situation we find ourselves in. Part of that has been a very significant building program, and we intend to continue that. As I said to the member before, there are some 22 new schools across this province that are going to be opened this fall. That's a number that would have seemed like fantasy a decade ago.
Right now, in the reality of the nineties, dealing with a rapidly growing school-age population, it feels at times like we're running up the down escalator. As the demands increase, we spend more attention on it, try to do it smarter, but there are huge demands out there. We intend to continue to be aggressive around both building more schools and building them more efficiently, working with school districts around measures like extended days, which will get us more school space for the tax dollar, and other initiatives.
A. Sanders: There's a lot of history in what the minister has said. In order to really ascertain that, I would have to go back and look at the changes that have occurred in taxation, from the ability of the school board to tax, to the changes in municipal tax, to many other things that I'm not familiar enough with, not being that old. So that would be an exercise for some other time.
I'm going to get off core grants and look at some targeted grants in a minute. But just to give the minister the opportunity again to stand up for himself, one of the things that was said in the media was that the school district in Prince George, where the minister comes from, got an increase in their budget for last year above and beyond other school districts. I just want to clarify whether in fact
[ Page 6044 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget process for allocating operating grants to school districts is completely transparent. School district 57 was treated the same as every other district, and I assume that the secretary-treasurer in any district can tell you precisely why every other district got the grant that they got. It's that transparent.
A. Sanders: I think the question was something to do with
Hon. P. Ramsey: Last year, as this year, the committee that reviews the funding formula set about its work in the summer and early fall and produced a series of recommendations for changes in that formula which were made, and the ministry signed off on them before I assumed this office. Those changes were implemented. As the paper somewhat accurately reports, they did indeed deal with some of the increased costs of transportation and fuel, which had a positive impact on per-student funding in many rural and northern districts, including Prince George. So the paper's report is accurate in that the per-student amount went up in Prince George and therefore the overall budget went up, even though there is a 0.2 percent projected decline in student enrolment, which is, I guess, a class or two. Essentially, it's a flat school-age population in district 57.
[4:45]
A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I don't remember: did the funding go up in Prince George-Omineca as well as in Prince George?Hon. P. Ramsey: It's the same school district.
A. Sanders: Great.
Okay, I'm going to leave ESL, which is part of the special purpose grants; but it's a bigger area, and I'm not ready to deal with that at this point. I just want to get through the targeted grants. These are the grants that are the minimum amount of funds districts must spend on special education, aboriginal education and learning resources, as well as the amount that can be spent on administration. What is the maximum amount that can be spent on administration as a percentile of the total budget?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The administrative cap provides school districts with 8.8 percent that can be spent on administrative functions. The school districts report that they are spending 8.2 percent on administrative functions.
A. Sanders: Just to try and make some figures appear to resemble each other in some way, the BCSTA reports that administration is around 4 percent of their numbers, yet the ministry says that there's a cap of 8 percent. Is there a difference between those two figures?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, these are definitely apples and oranges. My recollection is that the BCSTA figures refer to district administration. The ministry figures refer to both district and school-based administration.
A. Sanders: That's very important, in that the BCSTA claims that we have the best figures for administration in all of North America and that these are 4 percent. But what they're talking about in fact is district administration, not district plus school-based administration, which is a significantly different set of figures. What districts are extremely top-heavy in administration according to the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: All of them are expected to live within the cap they were given. That cap does vary around the province. Some smaller districts, obviously, get a higher cap. I'll just give you a couple of examples that sort of leap out at me. Central Coast, which is, as the member knows, pretty rural and pretty remote, with huge challenges of communications and transportation, actually spent 13.1 percent on administration. Clearly the smaller the district and number of students, the higher the percentage of the overall budget central administration will be. This is why amalgamation of central administration had some appeal in the smaller districts. Some of the lower figures, as the member might expect, are in urban ridings. I'll just give you two: New Westminster and Burnaby both came in at 6.3 percent of total budget spent on administration.
A. Sanders: With respect to New West and Burnaby, they are both NDP ridings. Is there any other reason that they spend that amount on administration?
Hon. P. Ramsey: So is Central Coast.
A. Sanders: Touché!
The minister has stated that districts compare administrative costs further, and efficiency was one of the ministry's suggested areas for cost savings in the 0.78 percentile that was given to districts. In looking at the sheet you have described, which shows the percentile in administration for each area, did the ministry feel that in fact it was very definitely a possibility for districts to provide the savings?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that we're still in the early part of the '97-98 school year budget. We do have some indication of where the reductions have been made, because budgets have been submitted. The budgets that have been submitted show a reduction in this category, administration, of some $7.5 million across the 59 districts.
A. Sanders: What's the comparison across Canada if we have a cap at 8 percent for administration? What are the comparative figures for other provinces?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have the detail here in the chamber that would serve this debate.
A. Sanders: Again, to try and make sure that I'm understanding the figures the minister has given me, when we're looking at the cap on administration of 8 percent of total budget, do you break that down in any way into the amount of time that the administrator spends in the classroom versus the amount of time the administrator spends administrating? What I mean by that is if you're talking about 8 percent as the
[ Page 6045 ]
amount of budget that can be spent on administration, are those people only administrators, or are they people who are administrating one hour a day and teaching four hours a day? How is that broken down?
Hon. P. Ramsey: For staff that have both administrative and instructional duties, the amount charged to the administration budget is a prorated part of their overall salary and benefits.
A. Sanders: So in fact we could be looking at twice the number of administrators in a district than the percentile, because they're only working halftime. The reason I'm trying to understand this is that I canvassed the school districts to find out how much time their administrators spent in the classroom and how much time they spent doing their jobs of administration: how many hours on education management, how many on business management, how many on custodial maintenance, transportation management -- how many other management positions there were.
It was very interesting to me to see that in many school districts the percentage of time devoted to teaching
I think the importance is, specifically, that if 8 percent of the total budget was the amount being spent on administration, were we actually giving our administrators time to do their administration, or were they in classrooms? What I hear the minister saying is that that's not the case, because only the money that they spend doing the administration part is outlined in administration.
There are some other questions that relate to these grants to the school districts through the targeted grants when we're looking at the administration of school districts. I've had a number of questions -- quite often from people working in the districts; sometimes from parents, but more commonly from staff -- as to whether school districts were allowed to lease vehicles for transportation other than for the distance education or maintenance departments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, they are so allowed.
A. Sanders: I had a complaint from one school district that there were two Ford Explorers, two 4-by-4 full-size pickups and one Jeep four-door -- all part of the vehicles that were leased in the school district. The complaint was that these were not appropriate types of vehicles to be leased for individuals working in that school district. Does the minister have any comments about that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I assume the member is talking about leased vehicles provided to senior administration as part of their compensation packages. This is a matter that is within the purview of the school districts. I think that the sort of bad-weather, heavy-duty transportation that the member is talking about might be appropriate in some districts. I can surely think of districts where it would be inappropriate. If the member wants to provide me some information, I'd be interested in following up.
A. Sanders: For the benefit of the minister, these would not be appropriate vehicles for this particular school district, and I'd be quite happy to have him follow that up for me. I think one of the things we have to be seen to be doing -- through a ministry that is losing money for children's education, in the view of parents -- is driving appropriate vehicles that reflect the conservancy of dollars in the Education ministry.
[5:00]
This is another question asked of me by an individual taxpayer. With the vehicles that are leased, are the administration staff who are using these vehicles required to keep mileage? Do they have mileage allowances? Are there yearly limits? Do districts keep mileage? What kind of accountability does the minister require of the individual district to make the public feel comfortable that their tax dollars are being spent appropriately?Hon. P. Ramsey: These are matters of district policy. Obviously Revenue Canada, as the member knows, has guidelines for how a vehicle is charged for business or personal use if it's a leased vehicle. The only other thing I'd say is that I absolutely agree with the member's concern about this, and any specifics she can provide me with would be welcome. PSEC has asked BCPSEA to do a review across all districts to ascertain what types of leases are being entered into as part of executive compensation in the K-to-12 system.
A. Sanders: Just one more question along this line, again from an individual parent. Do school boards and school districts' administrative staff have expense allowances? One individual has complained to me that his school district's administration spent $25,000 on hot food last year for the benefit of school board meetings, etc. For the protection of all of us, what mechanisms are in place to audit these kinds of reports?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a bit of good news and, I think, an ongoing problem here. The good news is that anything that a school district employee receives in salary, benefits or expenses is part of the public record, and it is available to anybody who wishes to ask for it from the school district. I guess the good news is that this sort of expenditure decision is available for public scrutiny in communities and regions where it may be going on. The problem remains, though, and the sort of expenses that the member references are ones that I and other parents and the member would find inappropriate at a time when schools are saying that they don't have enough resources at the school level.
This is part of the difficulty, however. Without simply taking over the running of 59 school boards, it is very difficult to control this kind of expenditure decision by boards and administrations at a district level. I think the accountability for those decisions rests appropriately with an elected board and their senior staff. Where I find such occurrences, I call it to the attention of the board and senior staff, and I would hope the member opposite would also do the same.
A. Sanders: It is appropriate for the minister to instruct this member in the appropriate way of looking into this, and I appreciate that.
If we just turn for a moment to special education, what is the targeted funding for special ed for the '97-98 budget?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's $396.9 million.
[ Page 6046 ]
A. Sanders: When districts amalgamated, they each retained their funding for special education under the amalgamated district. Will there be any change to this policy?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are no changes for '97-98. The amalgamated districts will retain the amounts that they had prior to amalgamation. This is, however, an issue that the finance and facilities advisory committee
A. Sanders: I appreciate the need to avoid talk about future policy. However, one of the things that amalgamated districts were very, very concerned about from the onset of amalgamation was that they would lose their base funding, and that they would find their special education funding amalgamated even though there was
School districts wish to have clarified the roles and responsibilities of the ministry and school boards around government restrictions on how money is to be allocated and spent. Could the minister explain what has been done to this end in the area of special education?
Hon. P. Ramsey: What I have indicated to the school boards, to the teachers and to the world at large, is that we need better methods of accounting for delivery of special education service. The two main measures we have now are an audit of whether the special needs children that the district reports are actually enrolled and receiving service in the district -- as we discussed last week -- and second, audits of how funds are spent to ensure that targeted amounts for special education are actually spent on provision of special education. I have said that I have talked to any number of people who don't believe that simply targeting is sufficient in ensuring accountability. I have told school districts that I intend to remove that targeting when we have better measures of accountability. And I have challenged them to work with the ministry and to produce such measures in time for, not this fiscal year, not this school year, but the following one.
A. Sanders: Could the minister answer that same question, only reframed in the area of aboriginal education?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Precisely the same answer.
A. Sanders: Another area of the granting system for schools is developmental grants. The office for disability issues is now of course under the auspices of the Minister of Education. For my benefit again, could the minister define what disability means in terms of the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I've got to the bottom of it. You may have got confused here. Developmental grants are provided to school districts to help develop teachers and curriculum, they don't have anything to do with special education or disability issues.
A. Sanders: So if we're looking at the office for disability issues, what kind of issue would I bring to this office if I wanted them to look at my circumstances?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The office for disability issues deals with any government policy; it's cross-government. Its ambit or purview is not limited to Education. I'll just give you one example of something that, in a previous incarnation, I wrote to the then Minister of Education about, asking him to have the office for disability issues look into it. That was the necessity for multiple pieces of paper that said, "I'm a person living with a permanent disability," which a person requires in order to get access to reduced government services in a variety of areas. Currently -- not to leave open a huge line of questioning -- government requires a certification of disability for a variety of special purposes -- everything from getting a fishing licence to
A. Sanders: Two things I get from that answer: one is that we're talking primarily about mental or physical disability, as opposed to poverty, and these would be congenital mental and physical disabilities, as opposed to
Interjection.
A. Sanders: Okay.
I don't believe this area was under the Ministry of Education last year. Was this
Interjection.
A. Sanders: Well then, I've just discovered that, so there you go.
Is there any kind of booklet or something I can be given to read up on what this office for disability issues is actually about?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
A. Sanders: Okay, then I'll be a little bit more informed.
What is the budget for the office for disability issues?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's in the order of $750,000. I'd be pleased to provide the member with information on the office for disability issues. Just to read into the record, so we have it for these debates and for the public who might be curious about the general program description, the office has several parts: it consults with ministries to recommend changes for persons with disabilities adversely affected; it assists ministries to improve delivery and reduce fragmentation of services to persons with disabilities; it informs and educates public policy-makers to ensure consistent understanding of issues facing persons with disabilities; it formulates policy and procedures to eliminate systemic discrimination against persons with disabilities; and it facilitates public education and participation on disability issues. There's a much longer list of goals and objectives, and a good list of major program activities. I would be pleased to provide the member some information on it. I would also invite the member, as time permits, perhaps in the fall, to actually visit the office. I found the people working in this area very impressive and very committed.
[5:15]
[ Page 6047 ]
A. Sanders: I have a couple of very quick questions about this area so that I have an idea. First of all, how many FTEs are in the office, and what accountability measures are in place for the office?Hon. P. Ramsey: There are six FTEs in the office and they are part of the expanding empire of my ADM on my right.
A. Sanders: Mr. Pallan is growing as we speak over these estimates.
What is the mandate of the office of disability issues? Is this total integration, or is it more removal of barriers to integration?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope we're not confusing a couple of things here. The ministry does have policies around the inclusionary principle in special education -- how education is delivered. The mandate of the office of disability issues goes way beyond education and is looking at a whole range of issues, as I think the program description that I read outlines. It includes everything from, for example, a goal of increasing the number of people with disabilities who work within government -- which is clearly a sort of affirmative action initiative that the office is working on -- to ensuring that disability is not a barrier to education, training or employment opportunities, which has pieces of this ministry and then more general public policy. So it's a far wider range of issues than the concerns within the special education community about how education services are delivered to children with special needs.
A. Sanders: How many disabled people work within the government?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have exchanged various figures on this side. I don't have a clear answer for the member.
A. Sanders: And my last question on this area. I'm hoping that the definition of disability through the office of disability issues is a common definition through all ministries. Is that in fact the case?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it is, and actually counting the people with disabilities who are employed by the public service is measured centrally.
A. Sanders: There are a number of individuals in the opposition and perhaps on the government side who will want to talk about the capital reviews and the capital freeze from last year, and I would wait until tomorrow for them to all have a chance to take a run at the minister, one after the other. I'd like to focus on some things that I find very important, and the first one is school fees.
In the case of McDonald and Chamak v. School District 61 this year, Justice Drake decided that school fees were illegal. This case reminds us that the letter of the law has preeminence over reasonable considerations about economic impact and legal argument. Since 1872, British Columbia parents have provided their children with school requisites. Those who could not pay had charges waived. This is the practice today in all British Columbia schools that I have canvassed, certainly in ones where my own children have gone or where I have taught.
If this is the case and it has threatened now to shut down many enrichment programs in public schools
There could have been other creative ways to deal with the problem before taking a case such as this to court. One would be informing the parents of the current policy so that there would be some way around the issue for the school as a whole to deal with the issue. The second would be to canvass parents by letter to ascertain ahead of time those who could not afford fees and, again, to somehow provide them the personal dignity of not being in the situation where they had to come and have their fees waived. A third possibility would have been more communication -- in other words, parents and school boards offering this and other issues, and encouraging solutions among the parents in addition to the school board.
Unfortunately, these parents, McDonald and Chamak, have found that political will can force an issue in their favour. It's not up to me as critic, or the ministry for that matter, to decide whether that's right or wrong. It's basically that we live with the circumstances that have come about. Boards, on the other hand, will face cutbacks in that they have had a cutback from government in their funding and now have shortfalls to make up for that they may have gotten from families. We are now in a situation where we need an impartial review to satisfy the disparate needs of school boards and parents.
We are now a couple of months or a month and a half from the results of this decision. What is the current status of this situation, now in the summer holidays, six weeks to two months after the decision has come down?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a serious issue and as the member says, we now have a court ruling that the school boards, the ministry and parents need to collectively deal with. As the member knows, the ruling by Justice Drake is now being appealed, so this issue is back before the courts. I understand the hearing is scheduled for early August. So, of necessity, I'm somewhat constrained in dealing with the specifics.
Let me say this: the ruling that Justice Drake gave did not rule out or rule illegal all fees that school boards charge. For example, one of the facts that the justice dealt with was a fee that was charged by the school for a yearbook. The judge ruled that that was entirely within the four corners of the law and found nothing wrong with it.
I submit that what we have to find is a solution that does not reduce or eliminate opportunities for our children. That has been my goal as I work through the various options. We need to find some practical solutions. We need to find ways that we can differentiate between the enhanced opportunities that, as parents, I think we all want our children to have through school and are quite willing -- if we can -- to financially assist, and core learning opportunities which we expect and which the law demands be made available free of any charge. So there are a variety of ways of dealing with this. I'm looking to put a reasonable solution in place. I think that's all I can say about it at this point.
A. Sanders: Is the minister planning amendments to the School Act to overcome the ruling?
[ Page 6048 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I plan no legislation on this issue this session.
A. Sanders: What would be the total amount necessary for the ministry to cover all school fees in British Columbia?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Information-gathering on this point has been fraught with considerable difficulty, since we have found that amounts collected and spent are not even aggregated at district level in many cases, but rest with individual schools within the district. Further, we've found that where we have been able to get records, they tend to include everything from fees that Justice Drake's ruling would rule entirely within the four corners of the law, such as a school providing learning materials -- pencils, notebooks, whatever -- and offering those bundled at a discount price rather than having students acquire them individually through family purchase, through things like the yearbook fee, to things that he clearly had some difficulty with, such as fees for courses that are part of a required curriculum.
If you put all that together, one estimate -- and I want to make sure that you understand this is only an estimate -- is in the order of $25 million. Now, we're not sure how much that even walks into some of the highly specialized and very expensive opportunities that are offered by parents working through a school but on an activity that is only tangentially connected to school activities. For example, in my child's secondary school in Prince George, there was a group that went to, I think it was, London over Christmas break. Students engaged in some fundraising during school. They were accompanied by a couple of teachers who were involved in drama and the like. It was clearly not part of any "required" curriculum, and only tangentially related to students' educational activities. It's unclear to us how much of that sort of activity, or to what extent, is actually included in this, as well.
What we have discovered is, indeed, that there are wide varieties of activities that have been subject to "fees." Justice Drake has clearly drawn a line, and that line is now under appeal. I can't say a great deal about my view of where he drew the line. My goal is to maintain some of the opportunities for our students that have been paid for by other areas, not just by the public purse. I'm working to find solutions to that end. I hope to be able to conclude my work and make an announcement in the next few weeks. I'm not in a position to do that now.
A. Sanders: Some boards claim -- at least, they have in the media -- that the legislation does not apply to them and therefore there was no reason for them to pay any attention to Justice Drake's ruling. Does the minister have any comment on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, there are some school districts, we've found, that at least say to us that they don't charge any fees and therefore, I guess, they could argue that the ruling doesn't apply to them. I have heard other boards say that because it was a suit brought against the Victoria school district, and not their district, it doesn't apply. They may be technically correct legally, though I wouldn't want to test it. But clearly any solution that is found must be one that works across the province, not just for the Victoria school district that has been the subject of this legal action.
[5:30]
A. Sanders: I believe it wasHon. P. Ramsey: I would not want to speculate what a judge faced with that sort of fact base that the member describes might do. I find it difficult enough to engage in this debate with an appeal before the courts. Let me simply say this. We want to resolve the uncertainty rather than have this continue on a district-by-district basis. We are working on some useful and practical ways of dealing with this, and I hope to be able to make an announcement on that in the next few weeks.
A. Sanders: Is the provincial government paying for the Victoria school board's legal challenge to the Justice Drake decision?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have offered some legal assistance, though not the full bill, because, as we've just discussed, this is clearly a matter of provincial import, not just local import.
A. Sanders: When the minister says they have offered some financial assistance, would that financial assistance be in the order of more than $1,000 or more than $10,000? Is there a figure at which we're looking?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have a quantum agreement with the school board on what assistance might mean or what bills they might ask us to contribute to. Let me go back to my earlier point. I think the solution to this lies in finding some practical solutions. The court case is underway but, as the member has already said, this is one district being taken to court by one parent. I am interested in finding solutions that will work for all districts, all parents and all children.
A. Sanders: What will happen in Victoria this year? What will happen to field trips in that particular school district?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I find myself again constrained in responding to the member's question by the fact that legal action is ongoing. Let me say that I am working on solutions that I hope will have the effect of not depriving children of opportunities to learn outside of schools as well as within, and field trips are surely part of that.
A. Sanders: Another school from Surrey contacted me this year regarding school fees. I wish to read a letter from Mr. Weidmann from Elgin Park Secondary. He is the law teacher of a grade 12 class. I wish the minister to make some comments on the letter. Mr. Weidmann writes:
"Recently, I received the attached fax from the Law Courts Education Society with regard to students visiting the provincial court system. I was disturbed to read the contents of the letter, which outline a fee for court visitation by school or community groups.A number of the young people who were in the law class"Whereas I understand there have been budget cuts to their program, charging for a fundamental right is unacceptable. I discussed this issue with my law 12 class, and they wrote some of the following letters; these might be of interest to you as a student perspective issue on the issue."
[ Page 6049 ]
"In our society today discrimination is unacceptable, but groups such as the Law Courts Education Society of B.C. continue to discriminate.I'd just like a comment from the minister on this circumstance."As students of the province, we've been faced with a courtwatch fee of $2 per participant. I feel this is unjust, because as citizens of British Columbia and Canada, we have a fundamental right to view court proceedings the same as the rest of the public.
"The fee, which will be effective April 1, also targets community groups. I find it very ironic that the group that is supposed to educate us on law, justice and our court system can be unjust and unethical."
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm surely unaware of any turnstile or ticket booth at any courthouse in British Columbia that would prevent anybody from going and viewing the workings of justice. I think what the member's referring to is something that has been done by the Law Courts Education Society, which provides not just access to view legal proceedings -- as any citizen has -- but some other services as well. If the member will provide me with copies of that correspondence, I'll be pleased to have the ministry look into it and respond to her correspondent.
A. Sanders: I'll be happy to do that. The minister is correct. It's the Law Courts Education Society, which is on Smithe Street in Vancouver. It says:
"Courtwatching programs will cost $2 per participant, daytime mock trials will cost $35 and evening mock trials will cost $100. These fees for service are being implemented to help address the serious financial situation of the society. Ministry of Attorney General funding has been reducedTherefore the Education Society wants to pass that on to the individual students. I'm happy to provide that for the minister to look into, as he probably will get some questions on it at some point in time.. . . . The Ministry of Education has declined to provide any funding to assist in the delivery of school programs for law 12, social studies 11 and the elementary schools."
I'll start on the area of marking exams, because I think we can do that before the bell goes. What is the minister's philosophy at this particular time about testing?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Trust, but verify.
A. Sanders: Do you place value on the professionals teaching a subject also marking for grade 12 provincial exams, or is this something that can be delegated to other people?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're now zeroing in on the issue, and it's a little bit narrower than marking in general. Let me just say that I acknowledge that my initial response was a touch flip. I do think quality assurance rests on a number of things -- and what we're really after is quality assurance in our schools; they call it accountability or whatever. One is, of course, a good curriculum, and another is a talented staff of professional teachers to do it. I meant it seriously, although I said it flippantly, that trust in those things is basic to ensuring that our children learn the things that they must know to participate in further education and in their role as citizens in our communities.
The whole exam process by itself is part of quality assurance, and then marking, of course, has to do with how you actually evaluate the exams.
I guess the short answer is that it depends on the exam. I surely recognize that for provincial exams it is well to have professional teachers involved both in designing assessments and in evaluating the assessments that are done. So that's a long, roundabout way of saying it. The short answer would be yes, I think it is a valuable addition to the marking process to have teaching staff engaged in evaluation of exams.
A. Sanders: As the minister knows, last year a number of graduate students and professors of biology and other areas were utilized in Victoria to mark grade 12 history papers. For a number of different reasons, many of which don't need to be discussed here at length, the teachers of history 12 were very unhappy about that decision. The question to the minister is based on what happened last year and the uproar around here in the summer when graduate students and university professors were marking provincial exams for history 12, without what the usual teachers felt were the qualifications to do so. Will the procedure be the same this year? Or will there be more steps put in place to avoid that altercation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The principle on which the ministry operates is that
A. Sanders: I don't think the minister and I disagree there. I think the problem last year was that on the kind of history paper there was, which is not usually multiple-choice but primarily an essay format, there were people in other disciplines doing the marking. I'm just wondering if anything was learned from that lesson last year or whether those folks will be back here yelling and screaming at us during the marking of examinations.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is, you know, that the policy I expect the ministry to carry out is the one that I just outlined. That means that where content knowledge and specialization are required, appropriate people are involved in the marking of those exams.
If the member has correspondence that indicates this was not done last marking session, I'd be pleased to receive it and have the ministry investigate that. I might ask whether we're at the end of the marking section.
Okay. Hearing that we are, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.