[ Page 6085 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

BUILDING OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION ACT
(second reading)

Bill 39 will provide statutory recognition to the building officials industry. This is an important step that has been developed in consultation with local government and in particular with building officials throughout the province. The act will give statutory recognition to approximately 90 percent of the building officials in this province and allow them to better self-regulate their own industry and to develop guidelines, codes of ethics, training and skill development. In short, it will formally recognize the profession in a way that other professions are currently recognized, such as the Association of Professional Engineers, the BCMA, optometrists, dentists and other professional associations.

As I said, the bill has been developed over the last year with considerable input from building officials right across this province and from local government. It is a tiny piece of legislation that is long overdue, and I ask all members of the House to support it. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise briefly this morning and say a few words about Bill 39, Building Officials' Association Act. I plan to be very brief today. This bill is not contentious. It is a good, straightforward piece of legislation and, as the minister has indicated, one that is certainly due. We look forward to supporting it.

I'm sure that many members of this House have had constituent files related to building inspection issues -- people frustrated that at some point in their lives they have purchased property which has not met the standards they had hoped it would. I think this bill will be one step, at least, towards improving the situation with respect to building inspection in the province.

I think everyone in British Columbia, whether they be in local government or in the provincial government, needs to be sensitive to finding new ways to enhance the building inspection services in this province. The purchase of a home is, I think for almost everyone in the province, the principal purchase that they make in their lives, and, of course, we all have expectations about the quality of the home that we are buying. So I think this is an important, if non-contentious, bill for all British Columbians.

I think I should note as well that what is being proposed here in terms of a building inspectors' association is consistent with the safety systems review that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has undertaken in the past couple of years. We canvassed that review very thoroughly in estimates, and I am satisfied that the job has been well done. I am pleased to see Bill 39 coming forward as it is, certainly consistent with the direction of the safety systems review, as well.

What the bill does, and I think the minister has summarized it very well, is promote improved building inspection standards in the province by providing the association with the power to certify and discipline registered building officials. I think this is a very important step for the province to be taking.

This bill certainly doesn't resolve the full range of issues that surround building inspection, nor should it. Obviously it would be premature at this point to attempt to resolve the numerous issues surrounding building inspection that were identified by the safety systems review. But this is, I think, one step towards the resolution of those and deserves support because of it.

The one issue which I think is out there and that will continue to be out there until the province can find a way to resolve it is the building inspection liability issue. In the past several years, this has been a very big issue for the Municipal Insurance Association. One of their principal areas of liability, obviously, is in the building inspection area. They're very anxious to see some resolution of the building inspection liability issue. I know the minister is well aware of it, and I think the safety systems review points in a direction which, hopefully, will see that building inspection liability issue resolved in the relatively near future, as well.

So Bill 39 certainly serves as a useful reminder that in this province, we have very different treatments of the building inspection liability issue. The city of Vancouver, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, is relieved of building inspection liability through some unique provisions in the Vancouver Charter. For better or worse, similar changes have been sought for the Municipal Act, which applies to the rest of the province and which does not offer that same level of protection that is enjoyed by the city of Vancouver.

I know that the minister has promised to resolve that inconsistency between the two acts. As I've said, I think this bill serves as a timely reminder that work remains to be done in this area of building inspection and building inspection liability.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that Bill 39 is a positive and constructive step in the right direction. We on this side of the House are very pleased to provide our support to it today. It will, I think, as the minister indicated, cultivate a professionalism in the building inspection realm that I think has largely been there to date, but this will provide them with the same kind of treatment accorded to engineers and others. I think it will go a long way to assist in resolving some of the issues which surround building inspection liability. We're pleased to support it.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close second reading debate.

[10:15]

Just to reiterate one of the key changes and one of the very important ones, particularly from a consumer point of view, is the ability now, with the passage of this act and the 

[ Page 6086 ]

formation of a self-regulating society. . . . The society and the Building Officials' Association Act will allow the formalization of terms that people sometimes take for granted. Now there will be some legal backup to them. That is around terms such as "registered building inspector" or "registered building official."

It means the individual is a member of a society that is able to have its own code of ethics, its own disciplinary standards and its own institutional standards, so that the public can take some confidence that when someone is using those titles, they are in fact a member of the association and have a certain skill level and a certain degree of training. In future, this level of skill training will only get better as the association develops more and more ways of ensuring that its members meet the latest codes and meet the latest standards, and as it puts in place the required educational programs.

With that, I would like to close my remarks and at this time move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 39, Building Officials' Association 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. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 46.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997
(second reading)

This is an important piece of legislation for a number of reasons. Upon becoming minister -- and I know we've been engaged in discussions in estimates on this particular issue. . . . One of the great problems out there in terms of local government today is the fact that we have a Municipal Act that is the largest statute on provincial record -- over 1,100 sections long.

It's a very prescribing piece of legislation; that is, unless it says that a municipality can do something, it can't do something. In my opinion, the act is an act that binds government rather than liberates them. It's an act that constrains government rather than giving them freedom to do things and to look after the issues that they look after best. It's an act that I think constrains them from looking after the needs of the citizens of their communities. One of the highest priorities for the UBCM and local government in this province is to see the act reformed and to see the act changed.

One of the things that I think needs to be done is that we redo the act altogether, to make it more of an empowering document, to make it more of a document that allows municipalities not to have to come running to Victoria every time they want to do something, not to have to come running to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the minister to sign off an approval on something. Rather, it's to say: "Look, here's what you're responsible for. You're the one that has the authority. Just get on and do it in a way that is satisfactory to the residents of your local community."

We've discussed this at some length, and I've discussed this at meetings throughout the province with local government and regional associations. The plan I've outlined and the way that I see the rewriting of the Municipal Act taking place over a period of a number of years -- I think, realistically, about three years or so; I'd like to do it sooner, but realistically, three makes more sense -- is through a process of consultation and inclusiveness to decide on the key priorities. Let's start to redo the act so that it reflects the needs of local government today.

The act today consists largely of sections that in many cases were put in place during the thirties and fifties to take account of different financial situations, to take account of different political situations.

I. Waddell: What happened to the forties?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "What happened to the forties?" Well, he may have been around in the forties, but to me they're a black hole.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No heckling your own. . . .

The act is for a different time and a different place and a different province, and the fact is that it needs to be updated.

So what we've been working on in the ministry so far in concert with local government is the development of that process that we can engage in in a long-term rewrite of the Municipal Act. That's currently taking place.

Local government has said: "We need to move forward, though, while that's taking place. We need to see an example that the government is committed to doing this, that the government is actually committed to rewriting the Municipal Act." This bill comes out of that desire of local government for change, and it comes out of the desire of the government to show that it is committed to the process and is committed to redoing the act.

The act itself will eliminate some 50 approvals; it will allow local government greater authority over a range of areas. But more importantly, it's been developed through consultation with local government. This is the first substantive piece of legislation that has come through the joint council process. This is what we've discussed at great length through committee on Bill 2 debate and through the estimates debate, and now it's here today for second reading.

It's legislation that has gone through that joint council process, which, for people who aren't familiar with it, is a council that was put in place when the province and the UBCM signed a protocol last fall that commits both parties to sitting down and working out local government-provincial problems and coming up with a process that resolves things before they get to the cabinet table, so that we can move forward.

What this is enabling us to do is to bring legislation that is not provincial government priorities but priorities of local government. This is what they feel is most important. Earlier on, at the first meeting this year that I as minister had with local government, we sat down and reviewed what the priorities were, what the different status was of those priorities in terms of where they rated in terms of the ministries, what problems had been identified, and what work needed to be done before they could go forward. We then worked on those problems and on eliminating, if necessary. . .making sure that different ministries were talking to each other, so that by the time we had the second meeting of the joint council we were able to report substantive progress and get some considerable 

[ Page 6087 ]

agreement on what issues were still outstanding, what issues had been put to bed and what we needed to focus our attention on. Once that was done, we were able to take the proposal to cabinet and get cabinet approval to bring it forward, with the sign-off that local government has been a party to the development of this particular bill because it reflects our priorities. I think that's extremely important.

What does this propose for the future? Because this is working and has been quite successful, we are already getting our proposals. I had asked local government to submit proposals for legislative change earlier this year than would normally be the case, so that we could sit down and go to the affected ministries and the affected communities, and say: "This is what the proposals are for this year. Here's what work needs to be done in order to get legislation ready for next year, so that we have time to look at the implications of what the legislation means, not just to local government but to different ministries, and identify problems and resolve them, so that by the time the next session of the Legislature comes around next spring, we'll have in place a package that once again deals with the priorities of local government and has been vetted for provincial interests, and we can go forward with a broad-based level of support." This is how I see that the act will be rewritten over the next three years. I think that this will be a substantial improvement over the past ways that legislation affecting municipalities has been done. I think it bodes well for the future of provincial-municipal relations in this province.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my chair and conclude my remarks later on.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and offer some comments from this side of the House with respect to Bill 46, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997. The act, as is evident from the size of it, is a very long act. It contains some 223 sections over some 62 pages. It's a very large piece of work. As the minister stated, I think it's a very important piece of work, as well, both in practical terms and in symbolic terms, having come through the joint council process and developed that way.

One of the reasons that we can support this bill with confidence is that it has been through the joint council process. Having been through it, we don't have to worry about finding here and there in it sections which are discordant with the overall intent of the act. One does occasionally find in government bills little gems where the general flow of the bill is in one direction, and then we find a surprise that takes us in another direction. The very good thing about the joint council is that when we look at a document like this, we can be very confident that this has the blessing of the UBCM and, through it, local government. It gives us confidence when we're reviewing it here in the Legislature, as well.

The bill is not a contentious bill, and we will be very pleased to support it. The dominant purpose of the bill, as the minister has mentioned, is the elimination of unnecessary provincial controls over local government. I'm very pleased that at least 50 of the sections are devoted to eliminating unnecessary approvals for local government bylaws and so on. So the elimination of those unnecessary approvals is an excellent step in the right direction.

When I was first elected to local government back in 1980, I think the Municipal Act was probably something like half the size of what it is today. It has grown, and this is certainly a positive step in reversing that -- trying to slim the Municipal Act down, trying to leave responsibility for local issues where it properly belongs: with local government. One of the things that I think we have all realized in recent years is that the flow of paper costs money. The letters and requests for approvals and so on are all very expensive in this day and age, and unnecessary approvals are something which neither the local government nor the provincial government can afford anymore. So I think that this has produced a rethinking in the approach to local and provincial relations, and the consequence of that is that bills like Bill 46 leave authority where it properly belongs -- in the hands of local government.

Clearly, local governments are responsible to their electors. If local governments in their wisdom make a decision which the electors subsequently come to question, then, through the process of local elections every three years, local electors have an opportunity to cast their vote with respect to whether those council members or regional district board members have done a good job. In any event, the responsibility should rest with them, and the local governments don't need the provincial government looking over their shoulders in a whole range of areas, saying: "No, you really shouldn't do that; you should rethink this." Let's leave those kinds of decisions -- the local decisions -- in the hands of local government.

As well as the provisions which eliminate or clarify the requirement for ministerial or provincial approvals, there are a number of other changes in the act, which I've been following for some time. I know these have been requested by local government for at least a couple of years, and I'm very pleased to see that the minister and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have been able to incorporate these requests into Bill 46. Among these changes are additional enabling provisions for local government operation of airports. Local governments see airports as an integral part of their economic development plans, and this legislation, if it doesn't go all the way, will certainly go a good deal of the way towards providing local governments with the kind of authority they need with respect to the operation of airports.

[10:30]

The bill also -- and this is quite new ground, and I'm sure a good deal of thought was devoted to this particular section -- provides flexibility for regional districts to vary tax rates below the rates set by the province. I believe this request came largely from some of the northern regional districts, although I may stand to be corrected. Again, it's another provision which allows local government to have some control or guidance over the direction of taxation which they didn't previously have. The tax rates for regional districts have long been set by the provincial government. There may well be good reasons to maintain that, but this will provide some opportunity within that range for regional districts to vary in accordance with the economic development plans for their areas.

There is an obvious and, I think, quite dramatic contrast between the processes which produced Bill 46 and the one that produced the bill we saw very early in this session, Bill 2. 

[ Page 6088 ]

For the last few bills, we've had this distressing tendency of the opposition to actually be wholeheartedly supporting Municipal Affairs bills. I should take this opportunity to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very real difference between both the content and the process which led to Bill 2 and that which led to Bill 46.

I think the debate on Bill 2 went on long enough. It's probably still strikingly fresh in your mind, but Bill 2 was a bill which, among other things, repealed section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act. That was a section which from year to year provided security to local government that their grants from the province would be maintained at a consistent level.

The Local Government Grants Act was a relatively new piece of legislation itself -- only 1994. In November of 1996 the province, without any kind of consultation, took it upon themselves to do away with that section of the Local Government Grants Act that had at least for a couple of years provided the stability, predictability and certainty which I think local government very much cherished in its grants from year to year. Unfortunately, with Bill 2 this government chose, I think in response to their obvious fiscal difficulties, to download their difficulties onto the backs of local government and, through them, onto homeowners, renters and small businesses. That was evident both in terms of higher taxes from local governments and in terms of reduced services in other cases.

So what we saw here in Bill 2 was an example of the way not to conduct provincial-local relations. On the other hand, I think Bill 46 is a good example of how to carry on the business of relations between local and provincial governments.

I think the joint council process is an admirable one. It brings in representatives from the Union of B.C. Municipalities and representatives of the provincial cabinet. It allows them to deal with issues that are obviously of great consequence to local government.

I should also note before I conclude here that both the process and the content of Bill 46 are consistent with views that we on this side of the House have long held and which are contained in a document called the "B.C. Liberal Community Charter." What is proposed here is very much consistent with that. Whether we had any part in the inspiration of it, I don't know. Perhaps the minister would be better qualified to comment on that. It doesn't matter anyway. The important thing is that some very substantial changes in both content and process are incorporated in this bill, and we are delighted to see that. We are delighted to see, whether directly or indirectly, the approach that is contained in the B.C. Liberal community charter come to life in part through Bill 46.

In concluding, I think we see in Bill 46 an example of how municipal relations should be conducted, and we look forward to seeing more of this kind of an approach from the government. I'm very pleased to advise you of my support here today.

M. Coell: I am pleased to offer some comments for the minister on Bill 46. Following the same theme as the last speaker from Shuswap, I too had the privilege of serving at the municipal level for a dozen years before being elected to this House. I was pleased to see consultation with the UBCM and the municipalities affected by this bill.

It is in deep contrast to Bill 2, which the former speaker mentioned. I believe this particular Minister of Municipal Affairs probably didn't have much to do with the drafting of Bill 2, or else we would have seen much more consultation -- along the lines of consultation that Bill 46 has presented here today. The last minister. . . . I forget his name, Mr. Speaker. The consultation process didn't exist with the downloading to municipalities. As a matter of fact, I think he used the same consultation process that he did for the gambling and gaming affairs in the spring of this year. So I am pleased, as is our critic, with the consultation process which this particular minister used.

The joint council process is working well. I've spoken to members of municipal councils throughout the province. They are pleased with the way that is working. They look forward to that process continuing. I hope the minister continues that process.

I believe there is the necessity for respect from municipal governments to the provincial government and vice versa. They both touch the lives of citizens every day, and I think that working relationship needs to be built.

I see that this bill cuts red tape. Of the 200-plus sections that this bill deals with, many put authority back in municipal hands. What we were trying to persuade the government to do during the election with our Liberal community charter was to allow municipal government to make the decisions that it's capable of making, while cutting red tape.

I wouldn't be so naïve as to not see that this bill is also going to save the government some money by cutting red tape and giving the authority to municipal governments to borrow money. The MFA will now assume $300 million of government debt, which is not too dissimilar from what the province is doing with B.C. Ferries by putting $900 million worth of debt on B.C. Ferries. All this makes the government look good. In this instance, it also makes the municipal government feel good because they are getting a benefit as well as the province: the benefit of being able to relieve some debt servicing and borrowing in the years to come.

There are a number of areas that affect my riding, like the legislation for the Islands Trust Act. Clarifying the roles of their executive is very helpful to them. The islands will be able to keep many of the preserve-and-protect aspects of their legislation because of this. I think the minister has done a good job on that. There is a major airport in my riding that will benefit from this, as well. Their board of directors is working with the provincial government on the transition.

As I said, the downloading to municipal governments last November -- granted, it was a different Minister of Municipal Affairs -- left a bad taste in the mouths of municipal governments. This bill restores a lot of that. It sets a new trend, I hope.

We on this side of the House will push the minister to keep this attitude of cooperation with municipal government. At the same time, we will encourage him to continue using our model of the community charter to downsize the act and make it more responsive to local government's needs and to respect local government. I just wish to say that we on this side of the House are supportive of the process of this bill, we're supportive of the content, and we encourage the minister to keep on this line of work with municipal government.

I. Chong: I too am pleased to rise today to speak on second reading debate of Bill 46, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No.2), 1997.

As I listened to the minister's opening comments earlier, I certainly was pleased to hear that this bill was developed in consultation with local government through the use of the joint council process. Recognizing that that was a fairly new 

[ Page 6089 ]

process, with the protocol agreement being signed last year, no doubt it required a bit of give-and-take on both sides to develop and work toward a bill such as this that would benefit local governments.

I think that the priorities of local government are being dealt with by the introduction of this bill. I think we are finally coming to recognize as well that local governments do not wish to be bogged down in red tape. They do not wish to have their authority controlled to such an extent that they are not able to serve the constituents who elected them. If in fact this bill will allow the removal of some of that bureaucracy, some of that red tape, and the minister's office is able to work with local governments proactively to do that, then I think everyone will be much better served.

When local government is involved and thoroughly consulted -- and I hope they were thoroughly consulted -- then any conclusions, any recommendations, any amendments that come forward through a bill such as this will have to, no doubt, be supported. On this side of the House I think you will find that. At this point, I have not heard whether local governments are not able to support the changes that are recommended through Bill 46. As you probably are aware, hon. Speaker, many of the members on this side of the House have had experience in local governments and regional districts. We understand the need for this kind of consultation, which was clearly omitted when Bill 2 was introduced. We certainly don't want to engage in that kind of a process in future introductions of bills.

We do recognize that this is how provincial governments can work with local governments and regional districts to ensure that the greater good of all taxpayers of B.C. are properly served and that they feel that value for their money is certainly available.

The significance of this bill is that it appears to provide for more local autonomy, and therefore, with that, it removes some of the confines which the local governments have had to deal with in the past -- certain approvals, as was mentioned by the member for Shuswap. I recall being in local government. Oftentimes council meetings and public hearings would somehow be delayed or matters would be deferred because of requirements to refer back to the Municipal Act. To deal with issues from the level of the local communities seemed to be straightforward, but those regulations required us to defer issues and essentially take a greater length of time to deal with them than would ordinarily be expected.

[10:45]

Since local governments really consist of our locally elected officials, as was mentioned by the member for Shuswap, I do believe this bill will allow for more accountability, something which has been questioned and lacking in other bills and pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the past. More accountability is important, because again, our constituents are often wondering what it is that their governments are able to provide for them. It's important for the elected officials to feel that they are providing that accountability.

Also, along with the accountability, of course -- and not only in the fiscal sense -- the electorate looks at the efficiencies and effectiveness of their local councils, of their local governments. These changes contained within this bill will allow the municipalities to show to their electorate that they are being more efficient, that they are being more effective. That's why I am particularly pleased to see some of the changes in sections 44 to 151 inclusive, which serve those purposes, those changes to the Municipal Act. I think they're good changes. As we go through them, as we work through them, we will see that the local governments will suddenly recognize their ability to do their work as efficiently as they possibly can.

I'll just close with the comments that I realize that this is a lengthy bill, but I will also say that it represents a great deal of consultation and respect for local government. For that, I thank the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues across the way. This bill has come through a great deal of consultation. It does, in my opinion, bode the future for local government-provincial relations. The next piece of legislation that will come through, hopefully next spring, again will come through the same process, the joint council process. It will focus on what local government priorities and the provincial interest are. There will be all the necessary background work, so by the time the legislation comes here, there will be a broad base of support. I think that's extremely important.

There's one section of the bill that I think does deserve mention. I know the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is particularly interested in it, because it will have an impact on her community. That is the section that deals with grain elevators and the Assessment Authority, and how they're assessed for taxation purposes. It will have an impact on North Vancouver and on the city of Vancouver, and I am pleased that we were able to meet that request for the city of North Vancouver.

As I said, this legislation has come about through a great deal of consultation, and I'm extremely pleased. With those few words, I move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 41.

TRAFFIC SAFETY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. A. Petter: This bill, Bill 41, is part of this government's commitment to implement a comprehensive road safety program to reduce accidents, save lives and keep insurance rates affordable. This new legislation has been the result of a very extensive consultation process, involving a wide range of experts, stakeholders and concerned members of the public. In creating this legislation, we worked with and received valuable input from a broad range of partners across the province.

I can't possibly name them all, but I might start by just acknowledging some of the partners who were included in 

[ Page 6090 ]

the president's advisory committee of ICBC, representing such diverse groups as: the Consumers Association of Canada, B.C. branch; the B.C. Paraplegic Foundation; the British Columbia Automobile Association; the Automotive Retailers Association; the B.C. Federation of Labour; the Registered Nurses Association of B.C.; the Vancouver Council of Women; the Squamish nation; the B.C. Brokers Association; the Chinese Advisory Board; the Physiotherapy Association of B.C.; and the B.C. Medical Association. We've also worked in close partnership with the RCMP and community police groups, with the Canadian Bar Association, as well as with the Attorney General ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The Premier some time ago acknowledged a public concern about rising insurance premiums and, in doing so, initiated a rate freeze for automobile insurance and challenged ICBC to find ways to cut costs and provide long-term rate control. It's become clear to us over the course of the past year that the best way to control costs in respect of automobile injuries is to control the incidence of automobile accidents and the injuries that result from them. In the past year, a team of international actuaries led by KPMG released two major reports which looked at some of the claims costs associated with those injuries and with material damage claims that result from automobile crashes.

What those studies showed is that costs have indeed increased sharply, well above the rate of inflation in the last decade, and that a continuation of that steep increase in claims would require large premium increases in the years ahead. These reports showed that the overall cost of motor vehicle insurance has gone up by some 158 percent over the last ten years, 83 percent after inflation. They concluded that by 1998, we risk unacceptably high rate increases to bring ICBC back into a break-even operation position.

Of course, those rates are merely the symptom. The underlying problem, and perhaps the more serious social problem, is that those increased claim costs are a reflection of increased accidents within this province. This aggressive road safety package is key to addressing those financial trends by addressing those underlying social costs that result from an unacceptably high rate of human costs resulting from road accidents.

In December of 1996, a review team was set up to review auto insurance with five principles: fairness, affordability, accident prevention, fraud prevention and service improvement. That team, headed by Doug Allen, considered some 800 submissions, including some 75 oral presentations, over a period of three months. Participants in the Allen process included representatives from the legal profession, insurance industry, consumer and automobile sector advisory groups, accident victim groups, the health field, trade unions, engineering firms, community-based organizations, sectoral organizations, the automobile industry, law enforcement and human rights groups.

This review team concluded that any measures to reform auto insurance in B.C. must ensure that British Columbians will continue to be protected and at a reasonable cost to themselves and to the province. The review team believed that a key to this in the long term was accident prevention through changing driver behaviour and building safer roads.

Of course, changing driver behaviour is not an easy enterprise, particularly because British Columbia has the worst traffic accident rate in Canada. On average, every 11 minutes someone is injured in a road accident, and every 17 hours someone is killed. Regrettably, we lead the country in injuries, with 220 injuries per 10,000 vehicles registered compared to 142 nationally. Many of these accidents can be avoided.

More than half of every claims-dollar paid out is due to a crash caused by controllable behaviour, such as dangerous driving, unsafe speed, alcohol or drug impairment, or driver inexperience. So while it isn't easy to change driver behaviour, we're determined to do our best to try to bring about that change in behaviour.

We have listened closely to our partners, and here's what they've told us. They've told us to make traffic safety our first priority in controlling costs and to preoccupy ourselves with that priority. That's why we are proceeding with this legislation at this time: to get tough on bad drivers, to make our roads safe and to keep insurance rates affordable.

Our road safety program which is embraced by this legislation includes six key components. First, we are cracking down on impaired drivers with the introduction of a lifetime suspension for anyone convicted of impaired driving for a third time. The suspension may be revised to ten years, but only if the offender undertakes acceptable remedial measures, such as training or treatment.

We are expanding the use of the 24-hour roadside prohibition to include prohibition for drug impairment. We will also be assisting the police to become better trained in the areas of traffic safety and enforcement by giving them more training to recognize drivers who are impaired by drugs and more enforcement powers related to drug impairment.

Second, we are getting tough on speeding and dangerous driving. This legislation enables us to introduce intersection safety cameras to record red-light violations. I don't think it's any secret to members of the House that intersections are places in which accidents tend to occur. We intend to start with pilot projects at a few intersections around the province, identifying the best and most appropriate technology and then, working closely with municipalities, increase implementation of the cameras over time.

We will be implementing a new system of graduated fines for speeding, in which the faster you go, the more you'll pay. This means that those who speed well beyond the acceptable limits will pay a higher price. In addition, there will be increased penalties for speeding in such critical areas as school zones, playground zones and construction zones -- again, to target the penalties in a way that more appropriately reflects the seriousness of the violation and the danger to lives.

Third, we will be making bad drivers pay more for their insurance by introducing higher premiums for bad driving and by increasing the time period to regain premium reductions. As well, drivers will be liable for a property damage deductible when they cause damage to another vehicle.

This legislation will make it necessary for bad drivers to take mandatory retraining to acquire the skills necessary to meet acceptable driving standards if the superintendent of motor vehicles directs it. B.C. is the only Canadian jurisdiction that does not have the authority to refer bad drivers to training. This legislation will change that situation. The superintendent of motor vehicles must be satisfied with a driver's experience, skills and qualifications in order to issue or to reissue a driver's licence.

Fourth, we're imposing a new graduated licensing system for new drivers. New drivers will be better trained drivers. Learner periods will be extended from the current 30 days to six months, although drivers who undertake 

[ Page 6091 ]

approved training will be able to shorten that period to three months. First-time drivers will then receive an 18-month probationary licence with a very low penalty-point threshold and zero tolerance for alcohol. Along with the graduated licensing will come tougher testing, including additional testing: one test to receive a learner's permit, a road test for the probationary licence and a comprehensive new test to receive the standard B.C. driver's licence.

Fifth, anti-fraud and anti-crime measures are being increased through the introduction of higher fines, reduced insurance benefits, improved law enforcement measures and premium discounts for vehicles with anti-theft devices. ICBC has estimated that motor vehicle crimes cost policyholders some $134 million in 1995, while fraudulent and exaggerated claims added another $150 million.

Fines for individuals who commit auto insurance fraud will be raised to up to $25,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences. Fines for corporations will be raised up to $100,000 for a first offence and $200,000 for subsequent offences. The legislation also provides for possible imprisonment. Restitution and compensation penalties will be included to add further deterrent.

Measures are also being added to provide more time to ICBC for information gathering and the investigation of offences. We will also make sure that ICBC and the drivers of B.C. who pay premiums are liable only for injuries that are automobile related. Those involving criminal activities such as drive-by shootings, for example, will not be able to receive an award for injuries unrelated to automobile accidents.

Sixth, parties involved in an accident will have an alternative to costly and lengthy court battles, with a phased-in mediation process to be introduced throughout the province. This is a recommendation that was strongly urged upon us by the Canadian Bar Association and other groups. It has been estimated that more than one-third of non-family civil cases in our courts are related to personal injury claims arising from road accidents. An alternative dispute resolution process will assist in addressing this problem and will provide a better mechanism for resolving disputes for those who have outstanding issues related to automobile insurance claims.

This legislation initiates measures to encourage periodic payments in addition to lump-sum payments for accident victims, so as to spread out payments for the seriously injured. To ensure that the victim of an automobile accident will recover in wage losses what he or she would have earned, payments will be based on the wages that would have been received on a net-of-tax basis. This ensures that claimants will get fair wage-loss benefits, but it will also ensure that ICBC does not overcompensate by providing compensation for moneys that previously would have had to go towards providing income taxes, which are not required as a result of payments being made through insurance.

We will be greatly reducing insurance protection for those who participate in auto theft, including those who are passengers and a party to auto theft. From now on, any person who knows or ought to know that a car is stolen will not be eligible for future wage loss from ICBC.

[11:00]

Finally, hon. Speaker, this legislation enables the creation of a new traffic safety commission which will be charged with monitoring the success and progress of these road safety initiatives and with providing ongoing advice to government on how we can ensure that these initiatives achieve their maximum effect.

As I've already indicated, this province's driving record is something that should be of concern to every British Columbian who uses the roads today. British Columbia has the highest accident rate in the country -- some 25 percent higher than the national average. Each year 500 people are killed in automobile crashes and some 50,000 people are injured, many of them permanently.

I don't have to outline for members the cost to individuals and families resulting from these accidents. I'm sure many of us have had close friends or family members who were directly affected by auto crashes. The strain that this causes to families and to individuals can be emotionally and financially devastating, as well as imposing a cost to society.

What these measures are designed to do is stop this carnage. That's why this comprehensive approach is necessary. That's why we are initiating the toughest road safety program ever undertaken in this province, one that is designed to make bad drivers public enemy number one and to make saving lives priority number one.

However, legislation alone is clearly not going to be enough. Fundamental change demands a shift in values and a change in behaviour. That's why I'm gratified by the degree of stakeholder support and participation in these initiatives. We must work together to ensure that all drivers in British Columbia make a commitment together to be safer drivers and to make these measures work.

The Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act is the result of hard work by many partners both in and outside of government. It has involved extensive consultation around the province. While not each and every measure may be fully agreed to, public support for road safety initiatives in our province has been consistently very high, and support for these measure is extremely high.

To give you some indication of the degree of public concern, approximately 90 percent of British Columbians have agreed that police enforcement prevents speed-related automobile crashes. More than three-quarters of British Columbians support the concept of substance abuse treatment programs for drivers, and a similarly high percentage considers zero alcohol tolerance for new drivers to be appropriate. So there is cause to believe that the public is indeed ready, willing and anxious to work in concert with government and other partners to make sure that these measures do produce the desired effects both in terms of reducing automobile insurance costs and, more importantly, in reducing the carnage on the roads.

As I've already said, we believe that the best way to save costs is to save lives. That's the priority that we have placed in this legislation and in the associated measures that we have announced. These measures will enhance the quality of life for all people of this province by reducing crashes, saving lives and keeping insurance affordable for British Columbians.

D. Jarvis: In response to the minister's Bill 41, Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, I can't say more than 

[ Page 6092 ]

that we on this side of the House will be supporting the majority of this bill on traffic safety initiatives. We support it wholly. This is basically what we have recommended ourselves when in discussions with the no-fault coalition groups. It's like motherhood and apple pie: how could we not support a lot of these features that are in the minister's bill?

Some of this legislation, however, is a little bit regressive, but we will look into that further as we get on in second reading. This minister has put forward many omnibus bills in the past, and there always seems to be a stalking-horse somewhere in those bills. So we might find something like that in there.

In any event, we are supportive of this bill, which is aimed at chronic offenders, the bad drivers in this province. As the minister said, claims have been up about 158 percent this year, and that's quite significant. But there is a debate out there as to who actually does cause those accidents. We have a certain percentage, probably 15 to 20 percent of our drivers, who are under ICBC's RoadStar program. In the debate that I was referring to as to what caused them, how many of those RoadStar people actually cause accidents? That is a revolving figure. It's not always the chronic bad drivers that cause the accidents, so we must bear with it and we must realize that.

The more stringent conditions and prohibitions on drivers are good to see. We are in favour of that. It's aimed at those who drink, take drugs and are out there driving and who are definitely causing problems in this province with regards to our excessive driving records. I note that there are restrictions in here on young drivers, and that's good. I think that we have to retrain our drivers in this province to have more responsibility.

There are questions, as I said before, on drinking and driving. As the minister probably knows and as the Speaker knows -- I've spoken of it many times -- I've had five of my family members wiped out by drinking drivers. I can't see anything in here that isn't well deserved. In fact, it should be an even stricter situation with regards to drinking drivers.

Also, we have to do something about those who do drive while drinking and are never caught. We know what happens to the ones who eventually have collisions, but there are a lot out there in our society who are drinking and driving and have never been caught. They say the overall trend in alcohol-related claims is downward -- it's hard to know -- and that is good. The more stringent restrictions we put on driving under the influence, whether it be alcohol or drugs, the better it is.

In fact, there are suggestions of even more. I would even suggest, with someone who is caught drinking or charged with impaired driving, that we do like some of the states in the United States, where they put down DUI -- print it right on their driver's licence. It's driving under the influence. That perhaps isn't all that bad to consider.

The photo radar aspect. I noticed the other day that we are now up to 214,905 tickets that have been issued. That's pretty significant, when you think it's. . . . One wonders whether speed actually does kill as much as people. . . . There are places in the United States -- actually, in all or most of the states -- where they increased their speed limits. The reports are coming out that the actual accidents resulting from speed have been coming down. That has yet to be proven to me, and I agree that we should be stricter on our drivers who speed. However, is photo radar a cash cow or is it not a cash cow? What is the cost of photo radar in relation to the revenue coming in? Is it worthwhile? We will be discussing that further in committee stage.

This government, I'm afraid, promised a fairness code with regards to the original implementation of photo radar, and this has not happened with regards to the municipalities that did not want it. When the fairness code was first announced and photo radar was first announced, I went and had a briefing with the RCMP and the gentleman in charge of the photo radar. For example, they said that there would be no photo radar on hills. Well, they have it on hills. Things like that are happening out there, which are really upsetting constituents not only in my own riding but elsewhere in British Columbia. So we are going to be looking into that aspect.

The other thing about radar -- and I concur with it -- is the question of intersection cameras. There are some figures I had around here a little while ago -- I was trying to find them -- pertaining to intersection accidents. I've lost them at the moment, but they were pretty high. The number of intersection accidents in relation to collision claims was very excessive, yet the fines for people who were speeding through intersections, going through the red lights, were very minimal.

I would suggest that perhaps we should put cameras into the major intersections -- we have the statistics that this is where the accidents are -- and run tests and see what happens, see if there is a propensity for accidents as a result of people running that red light and causing collisions. If this is found to be a situation where it holds true, perhaps it would be considered to put cameras at all the major intersections. I think they should do a test on it first, rather than just go out and spend the money, like everything else, and do a mass experiment throughout this province. If they find out it doesn't work, then they've spent all that money.

I note in the bill that there are aspects about penalties for stolen cars and dealing with joyriders and all the rest of that. I think that is good to a certain degree. You know, if they are somewhat authors of their own misfortune, and they get into a stolen car and are aware that it is a stolen car, then they shouldn't be able to recover for injuries that have resulted from it. However, there is still that aspect of do they know or do they not know.

There is another aspect of the bill that includes some provisions on victims' rights and the compensation aspect of it, the mediation of claim change and the expansion of it. That is something that we would probably recommend.

Fraud. There are many offences of fraud, and we concur with the minister in his measures to curtail fraud.

[11:15]

I've discussed considerably the intersections, red lights, and, as I said, that is very good. This is a very aggressive and comprehensive approach toward traffic safety and accidents in this province. The traffic record of this government is such that we hope it will not cost us too much, that we will save money rather than paying out more than we bring in, and that this is not to be used as a cash cow in a lot of situations, such as with photo radar.

We hope that these implementations will be brought in, and I think they will, and be allowed to be put in, sorted out and sifted down so they will be effective, in order that we will not see any re-arising of the no-fault situation. We believe that 

[ Page 6093 ]

if these implementations of traffic safety and road safety are put in, they will be effective, and, hopefully, the costs of ICBC will be brought down accordingly.

G. Plant: Well, we heard the minister a few minutes ago say that in the eyes of this government, bad drivers were public enemy number one. We must admit that it's hard to keep track of just who it is that's public enemy number one this week. Is it Greenpeace, is it the Americans, is it the tobacco companies? I guess that for an hour this morning, bad drivers will be public enemy number one, and we can wait for the Premier to declare war on somebody else this afternoon, according to whatever is disturbing him then.

I listened with interest to the minister announce this traffic safety initiative back in June, and I listened with interest to the minister explain how this legislation fits into this new, aggressive, tough approach to traffic safety problems. In that context, I was reminded of statements made in this House by the person who was then the Minister of Transportation and Highways, Jackie Pement, back in May of 1995 when she introduced Bill 25, which was intended to deal with traffic safety problems. Here is what she said:

"I'm pleased to present this legislation that will reduce the $2 billion-a-year traffic accident problem we experience in British Columbia. Our strategy targets high-risk and bad drivers. Our traffic safety initiatives are speed-monitoring cameras, driving prohibitions, vehicle impoundment and enhanced probationary licensing for new drivers."

The question, I suppose, is a question or a note of skepticism about whether the government has finally found the will and the way and the courage and the energy to actually make this happen. I entirely agree with the minister when he said in his remarks a few minutes ago that this will be hard work. It will be hard work for government; it will be hard work for all of the citizens of British Columbia. It clearly is a project that will require more than legislation. It will require a change in attitude, a change in the way that we all as British Columbians approach driving and the use of motor vehicles. That's the kind of problem that is not susceptible to any kind of quick fix. It's going to take a long time to deal with it.

I hope, frankly, that in addition to embarking on these new initiatives and ensuring that they are undertaken with all of the will and the force and the energy and the dollars that are going to be needed to make them work, the government will also give them the opportunity to work -- that we will not be back here six months from now, or nine months from now, listening to the Premier or the minister stand up and complain and say: "Oh, well, we tried and it didn't work, so now we have to make further changes; now we have to go down this no-fault road."

The truth is that if any of this is to work, it's going to take longer than six months. It's going to take longer than nine months. It's going to take many, many months, if not years, to get this project of re-education, of new enforcement, down onto the streets of British Columbia in a way that actually results in changing driver behaviour. I'm reminded of the fact that this is hard work, and it's reinforced by what is, frankly, my skepticism when I look at the government's track record of doing that which it promised to do here in this House back in May of 1995, when the Highways minister said: "Here, this is what we're going to do to solve the problem."

The promise was that we were going to reduce the carnage. Unfortunately, two years later, the carnage apparently continues unabated; ICBC's claims continue to rise; and we're not really, in the big picture, much better off at all. The promise was that we would get there by photo radar. Photo radar -- apart from being a litany of broken promises and a litany of promises made to communities, which were broken, about how photo radar would be implemented -- was the cornerstone of this government's 1995 traffic safety initiative. It became an occasion for the government to take a $30 million project and turn it into a $60 million project, which, frankly, is no guarantee that anything useful will happen with the current initiative.

In 1995, we were promised administrative riding prohibitions and vehicle impoundment. Well, we finally do have them. We were promised them in '95; the government said we would get them in the spring of '96. It took a year longer; it took twice as long to get up and running. In fact, those programs are up and running, and they are now some weeks old. We will see if they achieve their desired purpose. I'm sure that no one wants them to succeed any more than I do. I hope the government is able to monitor those programs and ensure that they do work.

In 1995, we were promised graduated licensing, and lo and behold, here we are, we're promised graduated licensing again today. It's a great idea; it's probably an idea that's worth promising many times. I'm sure it was great to promise it in 1995; it was probably a good idea to promise it again today. It would be an even better idea if in fact we were able to actually move to a graduated-licensing program. I look forward to that happening.

We have a track record in respect of this government's ability to achieve its objectives, in respect of traffic safety that is less than reassuring. It gives me very little comfort that they have the tools or the will or the skill to achieve those purposes here today. But we are faced with a bill which is an important part of this program, and we'll need to deal with the bill on its terms.

As my colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, I think much of what this bill does in terms of its specifics are issues that are more appropriate to deal with in detail in the committee stage debate of this bill. But I want to just touch on a few of them now.

It's good to see the government expanding the approach to drunk driving and drug-impaired driving beyond simply imposing criminal sanctions on those who drive while impaired to encompass the urgent need to ensure that people who have substance abuse problems are given programs, given an opportunity to deal with those problems. When they are eventually fit to drive again, then they can be given their licences back. So instead of simply dealing with drug and alcohol abuse by using criminal law, this bill creates administrative mechanisms which will allow the superintendent of motor vehicles to create a context in which we can provide programs to substance-abusive drivers and ensure that they can deal with their health problem so that they will become safer, so that they will be people that we can trust on the roads.

[ Page 6094 ]

I think the provisions in this bill that deal with remedial driver training are good in principle. While we may need to spend some time discussing their details, I am glad to see them here. I'm glad to see that the government has picked up on the theme of the private member's bill that I introduced earlier this session -- actually, not just picked up on it but added to it. I think it created a more comprehensive approach to this issue, which I'm happy to say is an improvement on what I was specifically able to do in my private member's bill.

There is going to be created, as a result of this bill, a traffic safety commission. I guess I have two comments on that. First, if this represents an ongoing commitment by government to ensure that there is a process of external consultation, if you will, on issues around traffic safety, then I commend the government for that. I do from time to time wonder -- and I say this partly facetiously -- when I see that we are creating yet another commission, what it is that people do all day who are employees of government ministries. Because I thought that their job was to in fact look at issues around traffic safety and to make recommendations. If, in fact, what's going to happen now is that the work of public servants on these issues and in these areas is going to be enhanced by the additional input of an outside group, then I certainly hope that that works well.

My colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has identified some of the other specific issues that arise here that I think we'll need to consider in committee stage debate. I want to deal with two more specific issues. First of all, there are provisions in this bill around the concept of what are called structured settlements. Structured settlements is a term that is used to describe the situation where somebody has a claim in a personal injury action arising out of some serious, permanent injury to them -- frequently, but not exclusively, in motor vehicle accident claims -- where there are many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages being awarded. The damage award includes components that are intended to compensate the victim for costs that will be incurred by the victim throughout the remainder of his or her life or for a very long period of time. Costs of future care are a good example of these kinds of things.

[11:30]

The whole idea of structured settlements works, and works best when the plaintiff and the defendant -- the defendant in most cases being insured -- both agree that it's a good idea as a tool for resolving the issues of compensation that arise in that particular case. I am a big supporter of structured settlements when they are used on a consensual basis. I have some concerns with what this bill does, because this bill will, in fact, make structured settlements mandatory in some cases, and it will give the judiciary powers around the imposition of structured settlements that the judiciary may exercise in cases where, as it appears to me, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are particularly wanting that result. I think there are some risks there in terms of fairness that we need to look at.

It may well be that when we examine them in committee stage, the minister will have answers to the questions that will alleviate my concerns in that regard; if so, then all the better. As I say, the structured settlement idea is a good idea when it's used in the right case.

The second issue that I want to deal with specifically is the provisions around alternate dispute resolution. In what will become section 44.1 of what is the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, there are some specific provisions that will allow the cabinet to make regulations respecting mediation in motor vehicle actions. I think that this is a big part and an important part of the road that will see us reducing the litigation cost of accident claims by taking cases out of the court system and resolving them by mediation -- again, in principle, a very commendable initiative. We will need to spend a bit of time looking at the details to make sure that they strike the right balance of fairness and efficiency.

My concern, though, is that in addition to this specific provision that allows alternative dispute resolution in the case of motor vehicle actions -- in fact, I guess it will encourage it -- all of which is appropriate in a bill dealing with traffic safety, we nonetheless also have the section in part 3 of this bill that will become an amendment to the Court Rules Act, which goes much beyond traffic safety.

Franly, I have to say that it is no longer a surprise to me as a legislator, as a member of the opposition, that when I am presented with a bill such as the Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act -- and I'm usually presented with a press release from the government -- I begin the search for the section in the bill which actually has nothing to do with traffic safety, because I know it's there. I know that the government can never resist the urge to plant these little pills inside its legislation, especially when you have a bill that's 30 pages. They hope no one in the opposition will actually read the entire bill, because it's so much work, and it takes so much time away from all the other important things we do.

In fact, what we have here is a provision that allows the court rules committee to make rules that will require parties to all civil proceedings to engage in mediation and to make a whole host of rules around mediation. It may be a good thing that we do this. From the perspective of encouraging alternative dispute resolution, from the perspective of taking the same philosophical approach I spoke of a moment ago in the context of motor vehicle accident claims and applying it across a broad spectrum of civil disputes, it is probably a very timely initiative, to begin and to continue the process of creating, within the rules of court, structures that will facilitate mediation and alternative dispute resolution.

There are, however, a whole host of issues that arise in this context that are not necessarily connected to the problems around motor vehicle actions, or at least not limited to them. Who will mediate? Who will be required to mediate? Will judges mediate? Will retired judges mediate? Will we continue the development of a private mediation bar? Will parties to a litigation through a civil proceeding have the ability to opt out of mediation? Will there be subcategories of disputes that are simply not proper for mediation? These are all questions that are important and interesting. It's unfortunate that in a sense 

[ Page 6095 ]

these questions, which are general to the conduct of litigation across a wide range of subjects, are found here, rather out of place, in a bill that is supposed to deal with traffic safety. We'll probably have to spend a bit of time discussing this in the committee stage debate.

I want to conclude, hon. Speaker. I've already referred to this. The minister said in his remarks that it will take hard work on the part of government and on the part of all citizens of British Columbia to bring about the real, substantive changes that are necessary to ensure that over time the horrible carnage on our highways and the costs that flow from that are reduced. There is going to be a need for a great deal more than large advertisements in the public media that feature the minister as the poster-boy for traffic safety. There is going to be the need to ensure that the new programs are properly funded.

What I don't want to have is a situation where we're back here two years from now hearing about and forced to deal with the failure of another traffic safety initiative and the launch of yet a new one.

There is much potential for good in this bill, and I must say I commend the government for getting to this point. I think it's important that we not lose sight of the context which has given rise to this, and that we on this side of the House remind the government of that context as a way of urging the government to do the hard work that it has to do. We will return, as I say, to some of the specific issues when we deal with this in committee stage debate. Those are all my remarks.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close debate on second reading.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm certainly gratified by the support in principle offered by the members opposite, particularly the comments of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who described the bill as both progressive and comprehensive, and I thank him for that. I know we'll get into some of the nitty-gritty when we get to committee stage.

I have to say that I was a little disappointed with the member for Richmond-Steveston. When he first entered this House, he came with a focus on substantive issues and a generosity of spirit, but he has indulged in a fair bit of what I call cynicism and politicking in the course of his response. Perhaps that's the corrosive consequence of being in this Legislature for more than a year, hon. member. But I was pleased that his benign nature shone through towards the middle and end of his remarks, when he moved to the substantive elements of the bill. Both his concerns and, by and large, his support for the. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Notwithstanding, as one of the members opposite notes, some cheap and flattering comments towards the end. Be that as it may, I look forward to the committee stage and the chance to deal with some of the nitty-gritty.

I would just say by way of conclusion that this is an initiative that not only requires the full participation of all citizens of the province but obviously the combined efforts of all members of this Legislature in order to succeed, and I hope it's in that spirit that we can continue this debate.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Traffic Safety 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.

Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 36.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 36 proposes amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act that will enhance the effectiveness of the existing enforcement provisions in combating tobacco smuggling and black-market sales of untaxed tobacco throughout the province. Such activities impose a substantial cost on the citizens of this province, estimated at something in excess of $100 million in lost tax revenue each year.

To strengthen the province's ability to address these issues, three amendments are being proposed. First, the act is being amended to authorize assessments of black-market wholesalers for an amount equal to the tax they should have collected and remitted on their sales. The existing provisions allow the province to prosecute such wholesalers but do not provide any means of recovering the tax due on their sales.

Second, the act is being amended to authorize the director to require that an applicant for a tobacco dealer's permit post a bond where there is a significant risk that the dealer will not comply with the tax collection and remittance requirements. This parallels the bonding requirement in other consumption tax legislation.

Third, the act is being amended to authorize tax assessments based on information received from outside sources, such as the federal government or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The existing provisions only permit assessments based on information discovered during a provincial audit or inspection of a taxpayer's records.

Bill 36 also proposes amendments to enable the province to enter into an agreement with a first nations band under which the province would act as an agent for the band in the collection of a band-imposed tobacco tax. The federal government has enacted legislation enabling the Cowichan tribes band council to impose tax on tobacco products purchased by first nations consumers. This initiative was undertaken at the request of the band council and was developed in consultation with both federal and provincial officials.

To assist the Cowichan tribes band council in collecting the tax, the Tobacco Tax Act is being amended to provide authority for the province to enter into an agreement with a first nation band to collect tax on its behalf. As the province has no jurisdiction to impose tax on first nations purchasers, the initiative will not adversely affect provincial tobacco tax revenues. The province is not surrendering any taxing authority; the province will simply be acting as an agent and a facilitator for the band. This initiative provides the Cowichan tribes band council with a valuable independent source of revenue, but it also provides a unique opportunity for cooperation between first nations and the province to address mutual concerns over black-market activities.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of untaxed tobacco sold on the black market originates from out of province. However, because first nations purchasers are not subject to the provincial tobacco tax, tax-exempt tobacco sold from outlets located on reserves is also a source of cheap tobacco for the black 

[ Page 6096 ]

market. Black market activities have introduced undesirable criminal elements throughout the province, which is of increasing concern to both first nations leadership and the province.

The solution here, under federal legislation -- namely, the imposition of a band tax equal to the provincial tax -- means that the price differential between tobacco sold on the Cowichan reserves and tobacco sold at off-reserve locations in the province will be minimized. As a result, the Cowichan reserves no longer provide a potential source of cheap tobacco for the black market, thereby limiting the potential for black market activity and protecting provincial taxpayers. At the same time, as I've already indicated, it will provide a useful source of revenue to the Cowichan tribes band council and have the same salutary effect as tobacco taxes have amongst the general population in discouraging excessive use -- or, hopefully, any use -- of tobacco.

In that respect, the bill is a nice measure of both federal, provincial and first nations cooperation to address a social problem and also to provide this first nation with an additional source of revenue as a consequence. I commend this initiative to members.

[11:45]

The only issue that raises any questions in second reading is the issue of taxing authorities being able to rely on information that they receive from other sources. I personally have no problem with that and believe that it's appropriate for the revenue agents of government to use all information that is available to them to ensure that there is fairness and equity amongst taxpayers throughout the province. Tobacco tax is an obvious area for smuggling, because when taxes are put at such a high level, one must agree that it does encourage. . . . I don't like to use that word. But the financial rewards for someone smuggling for resale or smuggling for their own consumption is so substantial that it becomes pervasive throughout our community.

So I think the issue that becomes important is for the minister to ensure that the same rights of appeal, the same ability of a citizen being assessed tax from information that comes from some other sources, still have good rights of appeal, that appeal from assessment is not a convoluted or difficult process, and that having removed the normal circumstances of an assessor in someone's home or in someone's office looking at particular records, which gives the person being assessed the opportunity to make submissions and put forward other relevant facts. . . . Them having been denied that opportunity, it is perhaps incumbent upon the Minister of Finance to ensure that in the practice of making these assessments, notice is given of an intention to assess first, before the assessment is actually levied.

With that, I will take my seat, and look forward to debate in committee stage.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comment, and like him, I look forward to debate at committee stage on any of the concerns that he has raised or may raise at that time. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Tobacco Tax 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.

Hon. A. Petter: In light of the hour, it may be the appropriate time to suggest that the committee report, prior to the House adjourning.

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

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

A. Sanders: I was reading the clippings on the almost tornado warnings in the Okanagan and Kootenays last night.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: Wiped out the apple trees.

Last night we were discussing the OCG report, and my colleague from Delta South had gone through a number of issues on that report. What I'd like to do this morning is fill in those areas that he did not canvass with respect to this report. In summary of some of the things that were said about the report last night, there were some important ideas looked at.

The minister and the hon. member for Delta South were looking at accountability and the OCG report measuring something that was not necessarily always measured. What we have found, as budgets have risen and money has become tighter, is the necessity to measure and put into accountability structures areas that we have not commonly put into accountability structures.

The minister and I share the experience of seeing this done in the health care profession, where accountability has come into play because of the necessity for improving the use of every health care dollar; thereby a number of outcomes were to be measured in health that did not seem to make sense. How do you measure when someone comes in with a cold, does not receive any medication, talks to the health care worker for a period of time and then leaves? What is the outcome? What has been done? Well, in fact, not much has.

[ Page 6097 ]

In the same way as in education, there's been some controversy in looking at framing accountability structures into education in terms of how we measure and what we can measure. I would suggest that there are areas in education that can be measured in the same way that there are guidelines for other areas to provide benchmarks for measurement.

[10:15]

The importance of a stakeholder of that size, of course, if you are going to be talking about accountability and you don't have everyone starting with the exercise, is that you're going to have a failed exercise before things go anywhere at all.

I think the other thing that's very important about accountability is that all groups are represented. There was the comment made that although I asked to go to this very important summit on several occasions, the ministry actually refused to allow me to go -- which was more exclusionary than not being invited. I think that was certainly something that needs to be rethought, and that was discussed last night as well. We want all people on board. These kinds of issues would be the ones that would be very important to have all people buy into, regardless of whether they're parents, students or professionals involved in education. I would like to know, based on some of the conversations that occurred last night with the minister, if he is going to expand and make an inclusionary stab at trying to get all parties on board for the next report or summit that would deal with the OCG report.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Very quickly, on a couple of points. . . . I agree with the member that the involvement of the BCTF and the teachers it represents, in designing improved measures of quality assurance and quality control, is very important. While the BCTF chose not to participate in the roles and responsibilities forum, as I reported last night, they are participating in the committees that we struck to look at better accountability measures in special education, aboriginal education and administration. They also participated in the forum that we held on extended days. I am hopeful that they will be involved in future work.

No MLAs were invited to the April 15-16 forum. I attended briefly, as minister, and spoke for an hour, I think. Work went on with the groups involved in the provision of education and in the ministry.

The next step in this is production of a discussion paper, which will be out in the fall. Clearly, we hope that not only those directly involved in the delivery of education but a wide range of people concerned about education will respond to that discussion paper. We haven't made a decision to date on whether we're going to have another formal gathering of people to consider the discussion paper and the next steps.

A. Sanders: I'd like a commitment from the minister that MLAs will be involved, if they are interested, and specifically that the critic for Education will be not excluded but in fact welcomed to any of the meetings or groups that other educators and other people involved in education would be invited to. I'd like to hear from the minister that there is a change in philosophy on this particular point.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat: we have not even decided whether we're going to have such a forum. I can conceive of forums where that sort of involvement is entirely appropriate, and I can also conceive of work that goes on now, such as with the committees we have on accountability measures, on special education and administration, where any MLA involvement would not be appropriate.

A. Sanders: First of all, that doesn't answer my question. Second, the importance is that there is very little place for MLAs to be involved in this government in education, and I think that's a very, very unfortunate circumstance. I think that to give a bit of an example of that would be appropriate for the record. Did the OCG report or any other material that came out of the summit on April 15 and 16 get discussed with the Select Standing Committee on Education?

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the record, the member knows the answer is no.

A. Sanders: Has the Select Standing Committee on Education met in the calendar year 1997?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: Did the Select Standing Committee on Education meet in 1996?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We believe the answer is no.

A. Sanders: Did the Select Standing Committee on Education meet in the year 1994?

The Chair: Members, the Chair needs to caution all members that we are dealing with this year's estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

A. Sanders: That's fine, hon. Chair. I take your caution with great respect.

The point here is that we are discussing the accountability of a ministry under a government that's been in power since 1991. I can probably demonstrate without much problem that since the inception of this particular NDP government, there has never been a meeting of the committee on education. In fact, not only has there never been a meeting, but there has never been an opportunity for MLAs other than that particular individual who is the minister -- and anyone else he takes under his wing from his side -- to participate in any way, shape or form in activities that would be non-partisan and have to do with education and the betterment of education for all British Columbia kids.

I have a letter dated May 13, 1997, from a number of people. This is to the MLA for Burnaby North. It says:

"Re: Select Standing Committee on Education. . . .

"It is our understanding that the above-mentioned committee was struck following the election a year ago. We also understand that the committee has not yet had its first meeting. Could you please tell us what the mandate of the committee is and when you anticipate the first meeting will occur? Amongst 

[ Page 6098 ]

us, we have children in primary through secondary school grades in several different schools. We are concerned about many issues relating to the quality, delivery and funding of schools in the province.

"Education is a crucial, apolitical issue, and we are pleased that a committee has been formed to allow input from members, regardless of political party. As many important decisions are made at the provincial level, we trust you will also welcome input from concerned parents and citizens. We look forward to making a submission at the first meeting where public input will be sought."

Then there's a letter from the MLA for Burnaby North basically saying that citizens' input is critical. However, there are no topics that have been referred to the committee, therefore there has been no opportunity for that committee to sit.

I think it is very common and very obvious that the average British Columbian feels that we meet quite often on a non-partisan basis to discuss the issues of education. These affect all of our children, whether the parents vote in one direction or another. Very obviously, in setting down an accountability structure where there have been people excluded from a meeting on accountability because of their political ties, which is the only reason I can think of. . . . There were other people invited who chose not to show up. That's their business; they were still invited. And now we have a minister who will not commit in the future to inviting or allowing the participation of MLAs in any of the further meetings or discussions on issues such as accountability.

It's very difficult to get people to buy into any framework when we have a government that is deciding that they run the show; no one else is involved. It's certainly not a circumstance where we're going to have any non-partisan issues discussed. I think that is wrong. I think it is something that the people of British Columbia do not know, and I think it is something that this minister needs to seriously consider in terms of his plans for things such as the OCG report and the implementation. If you are going to ask people to be accountable, then you have to start by being accountable yourself. You have to be accountable yourself by providing an opportunity for all parties to have a chance to speak to the issue. I'll let the minister respond.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The decision on whether or not standing committees of this Legislature sit is the purview of the House. It is not a subject for debate in estimates, hon. Chair, as you have so appropriately cautioned us. So that is an entirely appropriate caution.

I surely recognize the wide range of interest in education matters. That's why we have 59 school boards around the province that hear regularly from parents and the groups that affect them.

Let me just say that we are considering whether we have a formal second summit. I have said that I'm prepared to consider whether MLAs are invited to subsequent meetings. I can see some circumstances where it would be appropriate and some where it wouldn't. I expect, as I've said, a wide range of input and discussion on the paper which will be coming out this fall.

A. Sanders: I think it's appropriate for the minister to make those considerations. I think it's appropriate for him to recognize, as well, that it is the purview of the minister to make those conclusions and that these are appropriate comments for estimates within that context. It's also appropriate for me to let the minister know that other groups that he works with, such as the parent advisory committees, were very unhappy that not all of the stakeholders, including the MLAs, were invited to the summit. When they found out that such was the case, they were very, very concerned that there was an actual exclusion of interested parties who were very much in the know and in the loop in education.

[10:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This topic was canvassed when we discussed the FTE allotment for that branch.

A. Sanders: Seeing as I canvassed it, I'm going to have to check my memory bank, because it doesn't seem to be there on top.

There are six projects that will be done under design and development, which is one of the subunits in this evaluation and accountability branch. These specifically involve B.C. Benefits, Welfare to Work, incentive program pilots, secondary school apprenticeship scholarships and a tracking project. I would like to know if there is an assessment of these six projects available. If there is, I would appreciate a copy from the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the tasks in the accountability area is to look at internal ministry operations. I think the list that the member has there has examples of that. There are surely others that go on. B.C. Benefits broadly has any number of subcomponents that one might look at -- similarly with the vocational rehab services and Quick Response training. There's a wide range of ministry activities and educational activities that the accountability branch looks at. It has a plan for the start of the year, and as the year progresses, other items may work their way onto the agenda. It is also, of course, doing work with the OCG report and measures of quality assurance that come out of that, including the committees that I've already talked about that are dealing with the issues of targeting funds and administrative gaps.

A. Sanders: Are these reports available, and will the minister give me a copy of them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: After the work is complete on any particular project, the report is a public document.

A. Sanders: There are nine projects that will be done under formative and summative evaluations. Examples would be the Passport to Education, as well as the K-to-12 CAPP. What is the present status of these projects?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The work on the Passport is nearly done, I believe. They either have presented or will shortly be presenting their report to me. On the K-to-12 CAPP, I believe the member said, I'm unclear whether that's referring to the curriculum for the CAPP program.

A. Sanders: Yes, it is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The work that's referred to in the document that the member has was the review of the CAPP 

[ Page 6099 ]

program, which was carried out in two pieces. We had a committee of the broad stakeholders in education that reviewed it. We also had a committee of students that reviewed it and made recommendations. I announced the results of those reviews and the continuation of the CAPP program back in March, I believe.

A. Sanders: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. I had forgotten that the report was in '95 but not released until '96, and the report was already done, even though the report, having just been received, says that there was a K-to-12 CAPP review. So I understand the query there.

In terms of the 1995 Ministry of Education-requested review from the OCG, there are a few other areas that the hon. member for Delta South did not ask about, which I'd like to have clarified. The first question to the minister is: where can the system go further in demonstrating how well students can achieve intended goals? I think I'll give a bit more information, hon. Chair. The OCG report recommends that the ministry shift from focusing on inputs and processes to more accounting of results. Within the context of that, where does the minister feel we can go in the system now to demonstrate how well students could achieve those intended goals?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The question was rather wide-ranging, and I was trying to get a handle on how she wished me to respond. Some of this we did cover last night with your colleague from Delta South. Let me talk about a couple of things. Last night I mentioned that one of the recommendations in the OCG report that we were attending to carefully was how we took the prescribed learning outcomes in the various IRPs and looked at reviewing them and identifying central ideas or themes so we could assure attendance to or focus on those central ideas or themes, wherever that course is instructed in the province.

I think I said that at this time we are not prepared to act on some of the other areas that the OCG reports on, and that was some very, very specific recommendations on testing regimes. We continue to work with other provinces to make sure we have measures of academic attainment that really go across the country in many cases -- international comparisons, as well -- so we can provide some measurement of student attainment in academic areas. Clearly I believe we need better measures in the whole area of citizenship and social responsibility, which the OCG report really doesn't address very directly. I've said that in these estimates repeatedly.

The final thing -- I just mention this, as long as we're talking in sweeping themes -- is the necessity to communicate clearly to students and to their parents about what learning outcomes are expected and how they have or have not been attained. The member is probably familiar with this '94 publication which, in a very brief space, sought to provide parents with a guide to standards and what students are expected to learn from kindergarten to grade 10, and identified in a general way what outcomes are at various grade levels and in various subjects. It's that area of work that I believe we need to focus on.

The great challenge here is that we want to keep things as simple as possible with core learning outcomes. We don't want to make it overly complicated. Perhaps too often that's our failing as educators -- we like to elaborate and make things complex. I think what parents are asking in many cases are some very simple questions about what outcomes are expected, whether their children have achieved them and how well they have done relative to students in other areas of the province and other provinces and other countries.

A. Sanders: The OCG report did state that the ministry must do a better job in informing the public about the performance of the education system. This was one of the recommendations. The minister also stated that he has heard that recommendation from the report and already has some thought processes about how that should be implemented and how he will do that. From that context, does the OCG report say to this minister that we have strayed too far from the basic educational mandate of the government?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, it doesn't.

A. Sanders: Does the minister feel that the report did say that we must gather better information about student learning? Has the ministry thought about how we would go about doing this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was seeking advice from staff on the level of detail that we should respond to on this question. Look, there are any number of areas on which we're seeking to improve data collection and measures of accountability. I've mentioned repeatedly at least three areas that we're working on very intensely because we are attempting to move away from measuring effectiveness in administrative efficiency, delivery of special education and delivery of aboriginal education, from reliance solely on targeted funds or caps. We are looking for other measures of accountability that we can then ask school boards to gather and report to us. That's one example of the work that I believe needs to be ongoing.

The other thing we're looking at, just on a broad basis. . . . I think the auditor general, in his examination of ministry operations, highlighted that annual reports from school districts concentrate to a large extent on dollars put into various aspects of the education system rather than on outcomes. We expect to be improving annual reports by focusing more on outcomes.

I'd also again remind the member, as we discussed last night, that the OCG's work is not done. His next phase is to go out and talk to school boards about how they see the relationship with the ministry and their accountability to the ministry -- and also the accountability that they require from schools, from principals, from staff.

[10:45]

The purchasing function is one of the administrative functions that is required of the school districts. No separate funding is provided for this function. The auditor general made several observations about the purchasing functions in the audited districts, and I've turned these into questions below. Three of the six districts wrote responses to the auditor general's recommendations, and these districts disagreed with certain of his recommendations.

Specifically, the auditor general observed that most of the districts audited were moving to a school-based form of purchasing management as opposed to district-based manage-

[ Page 6100 ]

ment. This may be part of the reason that some schools got into the problems that they did. We talked last night about this issue. He made a number of recommendations based on that trend. He recommended that school districts ensure that staff understand what their responsibilities are with respect to purchasing. To the minister: is he aware of the report from the auditor general regarding the school purchasing study?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is the one done in 1994-95, "Purchasing in School Districts." If that's the one the member is referring to, yes.

A. Sanders: The auditor general recommended that school districts ensure that staff understand responsibilities with respect to the purchasing function. From that time, '94-95, what steps have been taken by the minister to ensure that this does happen?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sure there are some follow-up questions, so I'll respond briefly to this. The ministry followed up not just with the six school districts but with all school districts. It has required them to have purchasing policies in place. It continues to work with them and with the Purchasing Commission on opportunities for amalgamating purchasing.

A. Sanders: Since that report, has the ministry done some accountability reviews to see that school districts are ensuring that staff are adequately trained in the purchasing function?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is no. The ministry does not get involved with that level of micromanagement as far as specific training programs for specific school district staff.

A. Sanders: In the auditor general's report, he suggested that district information and record-keeping systems were sufficient to show whether transactions were properly authorized and accounted for, but insufficient in detail to provide evidence of the rationale behind the purchase decision. How have districts responded to this issue? If they have not, how does the minister ensure that they are getting value for their money?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of ways. One of the things the ministry did was follow up with districts on how they would address the recommendations of the audit. The districts responded in a variety of ways as the specific recommendations touched on their operations. Some did extensive comparisons of tendering documents with other school districts; some updated filing systems; some investigated standard discounts; cooperative purchasing in some places was put in place, combining purchasing volumes with neighbouring districts; some expanded and explored opportunities to share warehouse operations with other districts; some rewrote purchasing policies. As I said, we've required purchasing policies to be in place at all districts.

Just in sort of wrapping this up, I'd like to quote the auditor general himself, talking about where the resolution of the difficulties identified should lie. He said: "None of these audits disclosed problems that the districts concerned could not solve themselves. We do not believe that school district purchasing should require direct intervention by the Ministry of Education or any other government agency in order to correct any weaknesses disclosed by our audits."

A. Sanders: I have read that recommendation from the auditor general, and I do agree with it. I think, however, that when we are having school districts going out for referendums and getting money from taxpayers in addition to what we have seen as basic educational services -- in addition to parent advisory groups buying paper for schools, as we talked about last night -- there is some need somewhere to have some accountability for something. I think that's why these issues are important.

Another question I wanted to ask was about strategic purchases. Again, the auditor general defined strategic purchases as significant learning resources. Examples were given, including computers, photocopiers and textbooks. He acknowledged the time and resources the districts commit to strategic purchases. He recommended that districts periodically review their methods of managing strategic purchases to ensure that the purchases still warrant the effort and management attention focused on them. The districts were to have responded to that particular question to the ministry from the auditor general's report.

He also noted that the responsibility for strategic buying had been delegated all the way to the school level in some districts, precluding the economic benefit of bulk buying. Another question, again because we are talking about large sums of money: are all districts now bulk purchasing? And if not, why not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are surely a number of funding issues around in school districts. I would be interested in knowing from the member which districts she is aware of that have actually passed a referendum to raise additional moneys. I am unaware of any.

In response to the question about strategic purchasing, we are looking at ways of providing provincial pricing, and in some cases provincial licensing, for items such as computer software, particularly. I think there are some clear opportunities in those areas to get into bulk purchases of strategic items. Some districts have formed consortia for the purposes of strategic purchasing, particularly in the areas the member mentioned. As we move forward in working with districts -- as I have described previously in estimates -- to get into their operations the efficiencies that the public education restructuring consultation highlighted, I think that strategic purchasing will increase across the province.

A. Sanders: It doesn't sound like we are getting much strategic purchasing happening, and it has been three years. I'm wondering if this might be a good project for the accountability and evaluation framework of the ministry.

Another auditor general recommendation in this report was that school districts consider joint purchasing opportunities -- basically looking at other districts or public bodies and acting in consort with those to buy larger joint purchases and gain the opportunity of lower cost. Has there been an effort by the ministry to share information on behalf of the districts so that joint purchasing could be pursued if districts chose to follow this particular pathway?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would say that joint purchasing is occurring across the province, not in every district and not in every instance; but consortia of school districts are addressing opportunities to amalgamate purchasing decisions and to get better prices. On the lower Island, in Vancouver, in the Okanagan and in the Kootenays this sort of work is well underway. Field staff from the ministry meet regularly with school districts in particular regions and talk about issues that are important. Very often, purchasing makes that list.

[ Page 6101 ]

One of the things that we have been stressing to school boards is their opportunity for using the services of the Purchasing Commission and on-line quotes that demonstrate the best price available to government, which they can take advantage of. So in a lot of ways we are working with school districts to make sure that as they make purchasing decisions, they get the goods they require and get them at a good price.

A. Sanders: I think the '94-95 auditor general report is important, in that we're talking about how to save and best use Education dollars at a time when we are cutting administration and changing areas such as ESL and special needs classroom attendants or helpers who are doing many things. With the large amount of money that goes into purchasing, it is an area where we could, through some accountability structure, perhaps save those other more important classroom individuals, such as teachers' jobs.

The minister has said that there was an expectation for school districts to identify opportunities for cutting administrative costs in order to safeguard education. Optimizing value for money in such areas as purchasing is inevitably compromised as a result. Reducing administrative costs may actually cost the school districts more, if they are not realizing maximum benefit from minimum costs in the purchasing function. How is this being managed? Is it up to the districts, or are there any safeguards for us to ascertain, from the big picture, whether any changes have occurred since this report was available?

[11:00]

A. Sanders: I look forward to seeing -- or hearing about -- the results of those investigations by the ministry to the school districts. I think they are important, and I think that they have the potential for quite significant cost saving for education. I'd like to see that they are actually followed through on and that there is some on-paper accountability for those costs.

In terms of accountability in a different light, I'd like to focus for a moment on school district annual reports and ask the minister: are these reports done for all districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: All districts are required to submit an annual report.

A. Sanders: Are these reports all reviewed by the ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: Some districts have suggested to me, as a method of cost saving, that they cut their annual report. Has the minister been made aware of this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm aware of it. I must say that I find it counter to the OCG report that we just spent an hour discussing, which asks for greater accountability from school districts to the ministry.

A. Sanders: I agree with the minister; it does go contrary to the OCG report. However, school districts that are looking for money are going to do whatever they think they can get away with in order to save that, to put it into classrooms. This has certainly been one of the areas that has been suggested to me by a number of school districts that they would chose to think about removing. Has the minister looked at these reports with the intention of making the reporting a good. . . ? Has the minister looked at these reports to ascertain whether they provide the appropriate information in the appropriate form for digestion by those in the public who would care to read them but who are not necessarily educators or ministry people?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as format, content, presentation and accessibility to the public, I think the word I would use to describe the reports is "inconsistent." I think some do a good job of including appropriate information and present it in a way that is readily accessible, and others do not. The ministry is attempting to work with school districts to develop a more standardized way of doing annual reports across the province, and to include more focus on outcomes of the education process, not the reporting of how many students and how many dollars and how many schools.

A. Sanders: I'm glad the ministry staff do look at these reports. I have looked at a number of them and found that they were impossible to decipher or to read. That was with a high degree of intention, yet they were still inappropriate. I would suggest the ministry consider a prototype report that they could do the graphics for, or whatever, like an annual that all school districts could fit their summaries into with the. . . . There is no point in doing a public document if it is unreadable, as far as I'm concerned. It's a waste of money, and I can see why school districts would consider not doing the report. It's kind of like a homework exercise to them, and yet it's very, very important to many of us who would read such things. So I would appreciate the ministry looking into developing a better reporting system, either in the form of a prototype or by any other suggestion that would enhance communication.

The last area I want to talk about in accountability is special projects. Last year we spent $15.5 million on special projects. For the '97-98 budget, what is the figure?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to reflect on the member's comments about annual reports and say that I agree with her. We need to find ways of making those reports more accessible to the broad public that relies on schools and presenting it in a way that doesn't turn them into a cure for insomnia, which many of them are now.

On the issue of special projects, you have baffled staff. Could you perhaps be. . . ? We are not quite sure what the budget is that you are referring to. Perhaps you could provide a couple of examples of what they are. Perhaps we know it by another name.

A. Sanders: I don't speak the language of bureaucrats, so maybe I've got the wrong word. To me, special projects were those areas that were outlined as gender equity, Stay in School programs, hot lunch programs, year-round schooling, young 

[ Page 6102 ]

parent programs, inner-city school projects. Last year I believe they were intituled "special projects." What they are this year, I don't know, but in the '96-97 year there was a total for those projects of $15.5 million.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This was something we did touch on earlier. With some programs, and I think most of the ones that the member is referring to, the funding was transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families. That included the money for the school meals program, which is budgeted at $14.3 million this year; the Kids at Risk program, which is $.5 million; and the inner-city schools program, which is $5.5 million. Also transferred was the budget for community schools, which is $5.3 million. So the total there is $25 million, I guess.

A. Sanders: I would appreciate from the minister some additional information on a couple of these projects. One that interests me is the gender equity program. What I'd like to know is the cost of that particular program, the location or sites where that program is being implemented and what accountability mechanisms are in place to evaluate the efficacy of it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We clearly attend to issues of gender equity within the ministry. There's a modest budget; we don't have the exact figure. Staff estimate perhaps $10,000 to $20,000 to do that work within the ministry. It's run through the human resources area of the ministry. There's also a halftime position that seeks to work on gender equity issues with school districts -- in other words, with the delivery part of the ministry. The main function of that position is to serve as a coordinator of information on programs that are being done or implemented in the various school districts.

A. Sanders: I think I've had this one completely confused in my presentation. I actually thought there were a couple of schools that were doing a gender equity pilot, where they would have different kinds of teaching methods -- perhaps different interpretations of curriculum -- and as an outcome, have an increase in gender equity, and at the end of it they were going to publish their results on how they had changed everybody and made them all the same. I actually thought this was going on in one or two schools. If that's a complete misrepresentation of the idea by myself, then I'm quite happy with that answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We can't identify the school you're talking about. Just for the member's information, I would tell her about a project I recently became aware of. It's not actually being run by the ministry. It's an initiative that's been undertaken by Maria Klawe, who, as you may know, is a vice-president at UBC. She was very involved in the Women in Science program, doing workshops targeted at high school and junior secondary school girls to provide general information and counselling about careers and opportunities in the field of science.

I became aware of her current work at a conference that I recently had with some of the software developers in the province, talking about the training needs for their staff. Maria was telling me about a program she's now involved in, which is focusing more specifically on a similar sort of work but more broadly seeking to provide both girls and boys with information on careers and opportunities in the field of software and computer technology, and information technology generally. One of Maria's big focuses -- and I must say I mention her name only because I found her relatively unique in this among senior academics at the university level -- is on what she sees as a systemic problem of underrepresentation of women, particularly in the hard sciences. Being chair of the computer science department there, she has sought in her own field and now in other fields to figure out how to undertake programs to rectify that.

A. Sanders: I am aware of Dr. Klawe. The interesting thing about her studies -- not to diverge too far -- is that the statistics basically show that women in grades 10, 11 and 12 do much better in science and math than boys. So I don't think it's a lack of aptitude. I think it's a lack of interest, or something along that line. Whether it's on the X-chromosome, I'm not sure. Maybe we'll find that out in the future, too.

The Stay in School project. Can the minister give me an example of where I might go and look at a Stay in School project and how it is accounted for?

[11:15]

A. Sanders: One other comment in this area before I leave it. . . . I have some concerns about both the hot-lunch program and the inner-city schools program. These are both areas that I feel quite strongly about in terms of. . . . They do provide equity, and I think they are absolutely necessary. However, I can tell the minister that last year when we were here, I was provided with a list of the schools providing the lunch program. When I followed it up, not all those schools that were supposed to be providing the lunch program were in fact providing a lunch program. Again, in terms of accountability, I think there is a real necessity for the ministry to look at what they are funding and to actually ensure that what they are funding is what they are in fact funding. The hot-lunch program is one that I found quite a bit of division on, in that it was funded on paper, but when I would phone the school, they were not using the funding for a hot-lunch program. It was being used for something else.

So I think that there is not enough accountability in what I call these "soft programs." I would expect that if we are funding a lunch program at a school, that is in fact what that school is doing. I think there is enough evidence to show that feeding a child when he or she is at school is important to their learning outcome and cognitive process. I will leave it at that in terms of my comments.

I would like to move on to capital projects. The capital projects have been one of the main ways that the Education minister and ministry gained the front page of the paper this year. We started out with. . . . Last summer my children had these Where's Waldo? books, and you have to find this little man among all these other people. That's sort of how I felt this year, looking for the schools that were going to be built. They were on paper -- they were frozen on paper or they were thawed or they were something -- but finding them was kind of a "where's Waldo?" exercise for this Education critic.

I think it's important for us to take a walk through the capital freeze of 1996 and on to what's been called the resolution of that freeze in '97. As the minister can imagine, many of 

[ Page 6103 ]

my colleagues on this side of the House and many of the minister's colleagues on that side of the House will have questions or concerns with respect to their own communities and capital projects that were to occur, that are to occur or that should have occurred in those communities.

I think there's still a lot of interest and, in some cases, consternation from British Columbians about whether education has become a partisan issue. This, again, is why I would go on and on about the necessity of the Select Standing Committee on Education meeting, why I would go on about the minister ensuring that all members of the House are invited to large group stakeholder summits and are not excluded, and why I think it's important for us to make sure that education remains a non-partisan affair.

It is one of those areas in which I think British Columbians feel we have the responsibility to do that. They want to know that no matter who is in power and governs in this province, their kids will have a fair shake when they go to school, in terms of the economic resources that will be available to them, regardless of whether they live in any region of the province, under any banner, under any economic circumstance.

To start with, to try and just clear the air on some issues that I am still asked about, I'd like the minister to have the opportunity to respond with his interpretation of where the original list came from of the 11 schools that were first removed from the freeze. As the minister knows, these were all NDP ridings for NDP cabinet ministers and the Speaker. This was quite a significant news story for quite some time. Parent groups were up in arms, and we saw quite a bit of placarding, followed by some placating, where other areas became aware that their schools came out of the freeze.

Who was it that was responsible for the original list of 11 schools to be built in British Columbia, all of them in NDP ridings?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Somehow I knew we'd get to this, even though we're debating the 1997-98 estimates and all this occurred in the previous fiscal year. I was fairly sure we'd get here.

Let me just say this. We chose a list for initial announcement. The principles that we were seeking to demonstrate were several: first, that the freeze was over, that both new and replacement schools were going to be going ahead. That was the first message we wanted to convey. Second, we wanted to convey clearly that this unfreezing took place all around the province; it wasn't limited to any particular area. Therefore some projects that were replacement facilities, such as Fernie or Williams Lake, got onto the list.

Third, and most important, we wanted to demonstrate that we were doing things and planning for schools in a different way -- that we were trying to do a better job of getting more schools built with the same tax dollars and that the freeze had resulted in a changed way of doing business. Therefore we actually announced the ending of the freeze at the Terry Fox school in Coquitlam because the rebuild of that school was going to be using extended days, and it had also been very cost-efficient in doing some creative land acquisition for the new site by working with the municipality.

So those are the three messages that we wanted to convey with our initial announcement. Some of these schools were clearly designed for regional students. There was no intention at all to be partisan in this. I'd reference the secondary school in Williams Lake, which I think is about as close to the riding boundary between Cariboo North and Cariboo South as it is possible to be -- it runs right through that city.

The other one that I found vastly amusing as the kerfuffle erupted, by the way, was Lloyd George Elementary in Kamloops, because the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was trumpeting in the paper his success in lobbying to get this school, which happens to be in the riding of his colleague the member for Kamloops.

Our three messages, I will admit entirely, got overshadowed by the issue of which ridings the schools were located in. My goal as minister is to build schools that meet the needs of our students all around the province. That means a focus on high-growth areas, clearly; those are represented by both parties. It also means dealing with schools that are dilapidated and run-down and need to be replaced, and that ends up dealing with schools in ridings all around the province, as well.

A. Sanders: I think it's always good for the minister to have the opportunity to offer his comments on these subjects. I think that in terms of the messages he wanted to get out, one was on planning in a different way. I think the message that British Columbians got was that if your kids were in a NDP riding, you got a school.

As to changing the way we do business, I think that message got out, too. I would suggest, because all of the schools, whether they were close to a border or not, were in NDP ridings. . . . The minister certainly took some heat from that. If he was not responsible for it, I think it's very unfortunate, because the heat would certainly have been directed towards him, as the Minister of Education, as having a very focused partisan view of the world -- certainly one that was not inclusive of all British Columbians. I don't think that that is this minister's personal view of how education works, so I think it's very unfortunate, in that he will have taken the heat for that. I do not think, personally, that it was an issue that he made a decision on. I feel sorry for that, in terms of what it has given to parents in those areas like Magee, who have been waiting and waiting for a new school and found that they in fact had been replaced by a school somewhere else.

It was not that none of these schools did not need to be built; that was not the issue at all, and I congratulate everyone who developed or got schools from the capital projects. It's more how it was done. I think that the way things are done is equally as important as what is done after the fact.

Based on that, I have one more question, and then I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Richmond East, who wants to talk about some of the projects specifically in Richmond.

What I'd like to hear from the minister is what he is going to do in the next year to really make sure that British Columbians do not feel that our Ministry of Education has moved more towards being a partisan ministry than it really ought to be.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the announcement of our three-year school planning and construction program, which took place later in the spring, in March, should have demonstrated clearly our commitment to build schools and replace schools where needed in all districts and in all ridings of this province. We expect some 37 of these projects to actually go to tender and construction some time in the '97-98 fiscal year.

The other projects -- over 60 -- will be in planning in the '97-98 fiscal year and will be slated for construction in the 

[ Page 6104 ]

subsequent fiscal year. What we attended to, as I think the member knows, was a plan for getting on with building all the projects that had been captured in the 1996 capital freeze, and second, all projects that had been legally committed to even prior to the freeze -- so they were actually pre-freeze projects in many cases. In doing this, we are obviously working with constricted capital resources.

[11:30]

I'd say that the way the public will see this happening over the next two to three years is by the ministry increasingly engaging school districts in how we get efficient in building individual projects, in doing some innovative and different ways of public construction and in trying out some different things so that we can build more schools within the means of the taxpayer. I'm pleased to report to the member that to date the great majority of school districts have been quite agreeable to this and have been cooperating very thoroughly with ministry staff in making sure they understood what the requirements are for schools. I've laid down some quite severe ones so that we can build more -- and with the time lines that we have for getting planning and construction done in a way that is orderly. I share the member's view that the freeze and then the unfreeze created a lot of consternation. I'm not going to attempt to defend some of the communications problems we had around the first announcement of the unfreezing, but I do believe that we are on track now for an orderly rollout of a multi-year construction program in British Columbia schools.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Education. There are a number of issues I wish to canvass this morning on behalf of students, parents, classroom assistants and teachers in the school district of Richmond.

I want to begin with a quote that has been attributed to the minister, and I simply want clarification or verification of whether or not this quote is in fact something that was uttered by this Minister of Education: "These cuts will in no way affect the children directly when we are talking about funding to the school district of Richmond." Could the minister respond?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have required school districts to reduce the administration and service part of their budgets by $27 million across the province. School districts are reporting to us on where those cuts have been made. The great majority of districts have done their best to keep those cuts away from the classroom.

L. Reid: The actual quote was: "These cuts will in no way affect the children directly. . . ." Did this Minister of Education make that statement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't know which article the member is quoting. I've required school districts to make sure that they are reducing services outside of direct classroom services. The evidence that I've seen to date suggests that that is indeed what schools are doing. I know there are lots of arguments to be made that any reduction in any staff anywhere affects children in classrooms. I'm talking about direct classroom services, and those are the ones that I am focusing on and that I believe school districts are focusing on.

L. Reid: Certainly this government has taken great delight in suggesting that they consult on a number of issues, particularly around education funding. My concern is a letter written by Yvette Heuser, scheduling assistant, back to the chairman of our school district, Sylvia Gwozd. I think the minister can appreciate that these are longstanding concerns with the district of Richmond in terms of funding. Their intention was to meet directly with this minister to see if some of those issues could be resolved. What astounds me is the lack of regard for that request, and certainly the letter is very clear. "Thank you for your letter requesting a meeting with the Minister of Education, Skills and Training. The minister has asked to send you his regrets, as his schedule does not allow for a meeting at this time." It seems to me that these requests are valid and valuable, and it seems to me that the minister should put some effort into meeting with individuals who are directly impacted. That's certainly the belief system of the Richmond District Parents Association. It is the belief system that we as a school district have operated on, and the lack of consultation is not helpful to the exercise.

I do believe that these cuts will directly impact on children. I do not accept the minister's assertion, which has been quoted in many references that I'm sure the minister has at his disposal, that these cuts will not affect children directly. I want to move to a piece of correspondence from the Richmond District Parents Association dated April 22, again addressed to the Minister of Education.

"Dear Sir:

"Parents in Richmond are extremely concerned about the effects that sharply reduced funding to our district for 1997-98 will have on our children's education. I would like to correct your impression that education funding levels in this province are sufficient to allow districts to make cuts without affecting the quality of education in the classroom.

"Our board has just passed, under protest, a 'balanced' budget that falls $8.5 million short of our needs. Of that $8.5 million, approximately half was trimmed from non-salary accounts, which were already at the bare minimum after years of restraint and inequities in funding levels. The other half had to come from staff budgets. It is not possible to take $4 million entirely from the administration ranks, and cuts were necessary that will affect the classroom."

The letter is written by Jean Garnett, president of the Richmond District Parents Association. As my colleague certainly points out: ten full-time-equivalent enrolling teachers, 1.2 FTE. . .areas, 9.4 full-time equivalent teacher aides, administrative staff. . . . These are impacts on children. For the minister to rise in this chamber and suggest that there will not be a direct impact on students in the district of Richmond or in this province is alarming to me.

This record that I have just referenced -- the Richmond District Parents Association April 22 letter. . . . The concerns expressed in here are so vital for the future education of children who live in the city of Richmond. For the minister not 

[ Page 6105 ]

to meet them astounds me. There has to be some regard for the fact that these are parents in the Richmond school district who needed that level of consultation. The chair of the school board needed some ongoing consultation to come to grips with these unfair demands -- I will submit to the record -- that have been placed upon the school district. What alarms my school district is the variation in funding. They have set out a number of questions that I am pleased to enter into the record. If the minister is able to respond to them today, I would be delighted by that. If he's not, I will accept the written comment.

The first question is: will the minister please explain why there are such dramatic variations in the per-pupil amount district by district? As an example, will the minister please explain why the per-pupil amount in his riding has increased by over $80 per student, while in Richmond the amount has decreased by $42? Give us the rationale for that. If there's a formula, I'd love to hear about it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's deal with that last piece of misinformation first. We have dealt extensively in these estimates with how the funding formula works. Frankly, I'm astounded at this question from this member. She has been in this chamber for over six years now. She knows very well that there's a funding formula for allocation of operating funds for a school district. She knows very well that the formula is reviewed every year.

There were some changes to the formula this year that resulted, as we've discussed in estimates, in a range of changes in per-student funding. Because of the change in formula, many northern districts found themselves with an increased per-student amount because of recognition of factors like transportation and heating that were clearly undervalued. The committee that looked at this recommended that those factors be addressed in the funding formula, and they were. The figure that she quotes for per-student funding in Prince George is simply inaccurate.

I must say that that's okay, because it's of a piece with many of her other assertions. I am astounded and a little bit amazed that this member would stand up and say how hard done by this school district is. Let's get a few facts on the record -- as long as we're getting facts on the record.

Richmond is one of the province's most rapidly growing school districts. It clearly has challenges dealing with a rapidly increasing school-age population and a rapidly growing ESL population. Those are major challenges for the board and for this ministry. In fact, over the last six years its enrolment has grown by 16 percent. That's from '91-92, to a guess of where we're going to end up in '97-98. A 16 percent increase is a very significant increase in school-age population and a huge challenge for the school board.

How has this government responded? Funding for Richmond over the same six-year period has risen by 31 percent, from just over $101 million to $133 million in the coming year -- a huge and significant impact, nearly double the rate of growth of school-age population. This district is well recognized as one that has increasing pressures. We'll probably be talking about capital budgets, and I'll have a few things to say about how well Richmond has been treated in capital expenditures, as well.

The budget that is presented to Richmond is fair. If they have specific concerns about the funding formula, then rather than the political bumf that that member has just read, alleging that somehow I am favouring my own district at the expense of others, that somehow this funding formula, where every secretary-treasurer in the province can explain to the member precisely why any district is receiving the amount it is -- and that I have interfered in this. . . . I find that very objectionable. It is not accurate; it is not the fact.

Richmond district has been treated quite fairly. My assistant deputy minister met with them for two hours to go over all their concerns. I have also met with the Richmond school board during my term in office in the last six months, and there are many school boards I haven't had the chance to meet with even once. I hope to be able to meet with the school board from Richmond in the future, because we have many common concerns to address jointly.

L. Reid: Please allow the record to show that this minister has not responded to the question that I posed to him. If the minister is going down the road of political interference, let's go back to the capital construction issues, where this minister had the gall to suggest to me that there was more than one list available -- and indeed found humour in that. I resent that assertion.

In terms of what has impacted Richmond district directly, I will enter it into the record. I will start with school district 38 teachers. Two full-time-equivalent district program teachers and 5.8 FTE learning resource teachers will be laid off; that's a fact. If the minister would please recognize that this is factual information that I am putting onto the record today. . . . Teachers' aides, counsellors, speech language clinicians, library assistants, laboratory assistants -- these are positions that will dramatically impact on children in classrooms not just in Richmond but across this province. For the minister to continue to rise and say that those cuts will not directly impact children is wrong. It's dead wrong, frankly.

There are innovations that the Richmond school district is prepared to put in place to address some of these questions. I certainly appreciate the fact that the deputy has indeed met with them; the request was for the minister. If the minister is serious -- he has said that at some future point he will meet -- I trust that that meeting will take place before the end of this fiscal year, because these are issues that this minister knows full well will result in negative impacts for student learning.

To make the case on behalf of his riding of Prince George that the reason the allotment was higher was indeed around heating and transportation. . . . Those are direct student impacts. It's not different in Prince George; it's across this province. Not to recognize that those impacts are in place is, frankly, dead wrong. So indeed, the minister has chosen not to respond to the question. The minister knows full well that he has taken some liberties in this area.

I'm going to add to the record the second question on behalf of my school district. Will the minister please explain the overall contribution difference between Prince George and Richmond, per student, from the 1996-97 budget year to the 1997-98 budget year? I would ask the minister to answer the question.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

[ Page 6106 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we'll deal with that one after lunch, but let's deal with the general shape of what's going on here. We had 59 districts across the province that had to submit budgets this year. All of them were faced with the same requirement to reduce costs by 0.77 of 1 percent. That's the $27 million that the amalgamation report recommended. That's the recommendation that I adopted and applied, as the report said that we should, to all school districts.

Of the 59, I would say that 50 of them got on with the job of preparing budgets, figuring out how to protect core services and where reductions could be made. A small number chose to do a very partisan political process. Regrettably, Richmond chose to be one of those. They said they had an "$8.5 million shortfall." After lunch I'll have some things to say about what the nature of that shortfall is. It's wonderful to present a needs budget and to say: "Well, this is our wish list, and this is what we wish we had." Then we'll talk a little about the funding that they actually have.

[11:45]

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

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