[ Page 6107 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

K. Whittred: Visiting me today for a couple of days is my daughter, Susan. I ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

J. Sawicki: I'd like to introduce one of my constituents this afternoon. He's a fairly high-maintenance constituent who calls me to task from time to time, but he's also someone I work closely with. That is the federal member for Burnaby-Douglas, Svend Robinson, who's with us on the floor of the House today. Svend is over here and has been discussing with the Premier, as our federal party's Fisheries critic, dealing with the very serious issue around the Pacific salmon. I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

G. Wilson: We have as our guest in the gallery today Mr. Ken MacRae, who's the public affairs and road safety regional manager for ICBC. Along with Mr. MacRae are his office colleague Charlene Humber, Maurice McFadden and a group of people who are with the Premier's youth initiative program at ICBC: Ms. Christina Wilson, Krista Hawes, Paul Spencelayh, Bryce McFadden, Sheilagh Smyth and Robb Tones. Would the House please make them all welcome.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today are a number of people from the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, coming here to witness the proceedings. I'd like to introduce all seven of them and apologize in advance for my inability, perhaps, to pronounce the names correctly. The individuals are Richard Mercer, who is their ESL teacher, Ferran Arruga, Orio Juvé, Asier Benito, Marc Gajnas, Vicky Stacco and Lynn Do. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD
(MURPHY CASE)

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: why do foster families have to go to the lengths that the Murphys did in order to ensure that children's best interests come first?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I gather the hon. member knows, the acting director of child protection talked to the Murphys and told them that we will be acting on the direction of the Child and Family Review Board, which is what that review board is there for: to make an appeal to. We will work for them and with them to take forward a proposed plan.

Nobody should have to go through either exorbitant time or exorbitant resources in order to ensure that their child is safe. But nobody who works in this ministry, including the director of child protection, does not make every effort to view it through the eyes of the child.

M. Coell: The Murphy's five-year-old foster daughter has lived with them since she was five months old. She calls them mom and dad. She doesn't know the aunt and uncle who were to become her guardians. This special needs child does not react well to change. Even the ministry's expert psychologist that they hired said: "She cannot tolerate change to her environment without falling apart." But the ministry was intent on moving her, for over a year.

How can the minister say today that her ministry was always putting the interests of the child first, when that certainly and clearly wasn't the way it was for a year?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's clear that these are the most difficult decisions the ministry has to make. The director of child protection had to make some very weighty considerations in this and many other circumstances, as well. In this set of circumstances, he had to decide whether this little girl would live with her natural sister in Saskatchewan or stay with her foster brother in British Columbia. It is very difficult to try and balance those decisions about reuniting an aboriginal child with her aboriginal family, and to look at what is in the best interests of the child. But if you look at the best interests of the child, you must also then include such issues as bonding, length of time with family, etc.

G. Farrell-Collins: Consistently we find that the minister isn't looking at things through the best interests of the child but through the best interests of the ministry, and this is another case where exactly that was done.

This case has been extremely badly handled from the start. Two home studies were done on this issue. Nobody seems to know why two separate home studies were done on the people in Saskatchewan. Numerous extensions for submissions to the board were allowed -- for unknown reasons. A gag order was issued against the foster parents. Relevant information failed to come to light and was not offered to the review board initially, until they were forced to by public pressure.

Can the minister commit today that she will have the children's commissioner conduct a full and complete and independent investigation into the incredibly poor, incredibly dishonest and inept actions of her ministry in handling this case?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We're not going to have a dialogue across the way.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Child and Family Review Board has done an extensive investigation regarding the future planning for this little girl. The fact that it has taken six months now speaks to its complexity and the fact that it took the investigator that long to identify the information. We sent people to Saskatchewan to gather more information at his request, and we did that as best we could.

In their report, the Child and Family Review Board commented on how the process could be better -- how it could be better by a variety of parties, including the ministry but including other parties who have been involved in this.

It's very easy to have opinions about what we should all do about children. But when you are the director of child protection, you actually have to have accountability for those responsibilities and decisions.

[ Page 6108 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: In addition to accountability, what those people need is proper information. This decision was about to come down several months ago -- three or four months ago -- and the minister is aware of that. It was within days of a decision coming down from the Child and Family Review Board. It became clear that pertinent and critical information to this case was withheld by the ministry and not forwarded to the board until it was raised in this House. I don't think that's something the minister should be proud of.

Will the minister commit that these irregularities and the attempted obstruction of information going to the Child and Family Review Board will be the subject of an independent and complete and thorough investigation by the children's commissioner, rather than just another sweeping under the carpet, another cover-up, whitewash investigation by her ministry?

[2:15]

This is a new ministry. I feel absolutely no obligation whatsoever to cover up for any actions of people in this ministry or for anybody else who is involved with or responsible for children. That is irresponsible; it takes risks with children's lives. I'm sorry, but I absolutely reject the fact that anybody that is responsible to me and works with me is going to cover up something that is dangerous to a child.

If there is information that did not come forward in a timely way, we will indeed be dealing with that, as recommended by the board.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS

My question is for my favourite straight man, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recommended that commercial fishing components should not be included in future treaties and that allocations of fish be addressed in negotiations based on watersheds, basins, regions or the entire province. Has the minister decided to accept that unanimous recommendation of the committee? Has he decided to accept the advice of his own caucus members on this important issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: The select standing committee has done an outstanding job.

As I pointed out to the hon. member last week, I have not had the opportunity to review the findings with cabinet and caucus, which is necessary in order to be able to bring in a response to this question. All the points that are within that report are taken very seriously, and we look forward to having that further discussion.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, the select standing committee reported to this Legislature nearly three weeks ago. The recommendations covered a full range of recommendations on this important issue. Committee members travelled extensively around the province and heard from British Columbians in every region of the province. I think they now deserve a response from this government and from this ministry.

Has the minister decided to make a formal response to the select standing committee recommendations? And when might the members of this Legislature and the public expect to see that response?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Speaker, there will be a response. That response will be done in a very timely way. I will not commit with regard to time, because it is simply not possible to do so right now.

STANDARD OF CARE AT
SKELEEM VILLAGE TREATMENT CENTRE

So my question to the Health minister is: with 300 RCMP incidents last year, why didn't anyone in her ministry investigate what was going on at Skeleem Village?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it is exactly that kind of situation that is being investigated by the provincial health officer. The licensing officer to which the hon. member refers will be talked to. Her opinion will be examined, and that will form part of the report after the investigation is complete.

S. Hawkins: Information continues to surface about this facility, Skeleem Village. According to one of the former employees, staff at Skeleem Village engaged in illicit drug use with patients and took patients to strip bars. Despite such activities, the facility not only retained its licence but received almost $700,000 from this government last year.

My question, again, is to the Health minister: why did her ministry continue to fund and refer patients to Skeleem Village when it had no idea whether patients were going to be safe there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Once again, in a very serious situation, the Liberal opposition continues to rely for their research on the Province newspaper.

I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that I am more than willing to be held accountable for this situation. There is an investigation ongoing; the medical health officer has been investigating this since early June. The situation is under close examination. 

[ Page 6109 ]

The provincial health officer is in there conducting his own examination, and frankly, actions have been taken around this matter, as well. We are talking about very vulnerable people, and we're talking about services that require. . . . There are very specialized services required there.

But I would also say that in the context of what needs to be done in this province for the proper delivery of health care in a way that makes sense for those who have been injured or harmed, our government is committed to actually delivering on the funding, as we have done, unlike the Liberal opposition.

The other thing is that we have also said that we will not sit back and just let things go on as they may. We have ordered a full and independent investigation of all licensing matters in this province.

G. Plant: We know that the RCMP have been called to Skeleem Village virtually every day to face suicide attempts and illicit drug use. And yet, despite all of this, children in the care of the Ministry for Children and Families were being sent to this facility.

So my question is to the Minister for Children and Families: did her ministry perform any kind of inspection before it sent children in the ministry's care to Skeleem Village?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two children -- or youth, if you will -- who are there. They're actually not there at the moment, but are in residence in that facility. One of those youths has no contact with the ministry. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. P. Priddy: What I'm saying is that one of the youths there has nothing to do with the ministry. Her parents placed her there at their choice, not at ours.

Secondly, for the other youth that is voluntarily in care there, the parents saw the facility. We made sure that they were aware of the concerns, as the Ministry of Health did, immediately they were raised, and we offered particular supports for them to ensure their safety.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

The Speaker: Please proceed.

R. Neufeld: . . .signed by 3,449 residents of Fort St. John and area, concerned parents and grandparents of British Columbia.

"I am against the BCTF resolution 102 to create a program to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism within B.C. public schools."

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. C. McGregor: I am pleased to table the annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board for '96-97.

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. D. Miller: I am tabling the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for 1997.

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present a number of reports: first, the annual report of the British Columbia Securities Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997; the annual report of the British Columbia college pension plan for 1996; the report of the Vancouver Stock Exchange to the government of British Columbia for 1997; the 1996-97 financial statements of the Provincial Capital Commission -- I commend them for members to read; the annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission for 1996; and the annual report of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission for the period ended March 31, 1996.

The Speaker: Minister cleans desk.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to interrupt this fascinating tabling of reports to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: The Premier and I have a friend, Donovan Kuehn, in the audience. He's here today with his mother Sadie, his brother Damien, and Gail and Jean Johnson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

I call third reading of Bill 31.

[2:30]

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

[ Page 6110 ]

Coell	Anderson	Nebbeling
Whittred	Thorpe	Weisgerber
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Symons	Hawkins
Abbott	Weisbeck	Chong
McKinnon		Neufeld
NAYS -- 9
Dalton	van Dongen	Penner
G. Wilson	Barisoff	Krueger
Masi	Nettleton	Jarvis

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 37.

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY ACT
(second reading)

In the absence of a lawfully appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner capable of providing me with an opinion on the matter, I think the course of prudence is for me to disclose an apparent conflict and, in the language of the act, to withdraw from this meeting without voting or participating in the consideration of this bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry that I have to start the debate this way. Of course, there is an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner appointed. He has the full duties of office, and the member opposite could have easily received an opinion, as every other member of this House does. It's very unfortunate.

The Speaker: I don't believe there's any debate, given that the member simply decided to absent himself. I'm sorry, minister, I didn't realize that. . . .

Vancouver-Little Mountain, on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would just say, then, that I suppose the member has given up her place in speaking, because she just spoke to the bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said "before speaking to the bill."

G. Farrell-Collins: Then before I speak to the bill, I'd like to say something, too. The minister took her seat. . . .

The Speaker: Members, I am going to. . . . Excuse me, members. I think I will take the blame for the fact that I didn't establish whether the minister was rising on a point of order. The member has declared what is a perceived conflict and has done the appropriate and honourable thing and said he will absent himself from the debate. There is no further point of order and nothing to be gained by having a debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Vancouver-Little Mountain, I have told you that I am perhaps in error. I do not need gratuitous comment reminding me of that possible fact. It seems to me that you don't need to do that, and, quite frankly, it's not acceptable for you to maintain that running commentary.

Having said that, on second reading, the Minister of Health.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act will assist the government and individuals in British Columbia in getting the tobacco industry to pay for the devastating effects of its harmful products. Last year over 5,800 British Columbians died from the effects of tobacco, and that number will increase this year. Many of them have been addicted to a product the tobacco industry has promoted with images of excitement, glamour and fun.

We know now that the health effects of smoking are not glamorous. But the tobacco industry captures its victims while they are young. Ninety percent of people who smoke started before the age of 19. Our British Columbia government is assisting young people so that they remain non-smokers. Funding for our tobacco reduction strategy has more than doubled this year to $5 million, to protect children from the devastating effects of tobacco. We will double the funding again next year to protect young people. We know that tobacco companies target children with their products, and we know why. Each 15-year-old who starts smoking will represent at least $25,000 in direct revenue for tobacco companies over their lifetime. That's to the tobacco companies. Every day another 20 B.C. kids take up smoking. The tragedy is that of those who keep smoking, half will die as a result of tobacco use.

Tobacco-related illnesses and disease cost the health system, and us as taxpayers, half a billion dollars every year. This legislation will assist government in making the tobacco industry pay for the health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses. Our government is working to ensure that tobacco companies are forced to take responsibility for the devastating effects of their harmful products. The initial responses of the tobacco companies to our challenge is unsatisfying, to say the least. There appears to be little willingness to recognize, own up to or provide compensation for the harm they inflict on our citizens. If this attitude on their part continues, it is our intent to proceed with legal action against the industry when this new law is in place.

This legislation, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, gives the government and individuals the legal authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other prescribed costs resulting from tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. With this legislation, we are trying to ensure that court action is not thrown out on technical grounds. For too long, the tobacco industry has had an unfair advantage in court. Our proposed legislation allows for the introduction in court of statistical or epidemiological evidence. This will allow the case to be made even more strongly and more clearly that tobacco causes illness and death.

In addition, we are including a section regarding liability based on risk contribution. It will mean that the government or individuals involved in court actions against tobacco companies don't have to prove that each individual cigarette brand caused the harm, but that cigarettes generally cause harm. There have been situations where many people with tobacco-related illnesses have wanted to take the tobacco 

[ Page 6111 ]

industry to court. Understandably, those people have had to concentrate on fighting their illness and getting well, but the Limitation Act states that the time has run out for most court actions while those persons were ill.

With this legislation, we are extending the limitation period to give those persons more time to file an action against the tobacco industry. An amendment that I've handed to the Clerk today provides that potential claimants will have a full two years following proclamation of this legislation to initiate their claim. The amendment also provides that prior dismissal of an attempted claim is not a bar to commencement of a new claim pursuant to this legislation.

All of these actions are designed to make the tobacco industry accountable for endangering the health of children, teens and adults. It's time tobacco companies provided just compensation to British Columbia's health system for the treatment and prevention of deadly tobacco-related illness. I'm proud that British Columbia is a leader in Canada in declaring war on the tobacco companies.

S. Hawkins: I agree that smoking is addictive; I agree that tobacco poses a serious health hazard. I certainly agree that our children are vulnerable. I agree that the government should be doing more to address this very serious public health concern.

But I'm a little skeptical about the government's reasons for bringing in this legislation. I question whether it isn't the budget mess and the shortage of dollars that required the government to look at new ways to get money. When I think of the hypocrisy that we've seen in the last year with this government. . . .

This government introduces this legislation to allow the government to sue the tobacco industry, as a means of recovering the costs associated with tobacco addiction. The government proves its hypocrisy by planning to sue the companies, the tobacco industry, while it moves ahead with massive expansion of the gambling industry. Both cigarettes and slot machines destroy the health and well-being of families. If the Premier and this minister believe that addiction needs to be addressed at the source, then they'll stop the casino expansion plan.

We know that the health care system is screaming for money; we know that. I travelled around the province. Every community, every hospital, every facility and every patient I meet tell me that they're not getting enough resources in the health care system. Yet this minister and this government say that they care about the health and well-being of British Columbians and that they're going to provide the resources.

We know that this government collects $500 million, almost half a billion dollars, in tobacco taxes; we know that. You know what? Does that money go straight into the health care system that this minister is so worried about -- and the impact that tobacco has on health care with heart disease, cancers, lung disease? Does she put that. . . ? Does her government. . . ? She sits on the executive council. Do they make a decision at the cabinet table, saying: "We collect half a billion dollars from the tobacco companies"? Does this money go directly to the health care system? No, it doesn't.

We need to know that the money derived from any lawsuit under this legislation that the government is proposing will be dedicated to health care, not just channelled into general revenue, because we know what they do with that. They've made a total mess of our provincial budget and programs that are supposed to be helping patients. We don't have money for those programs.

When they announced this proposed legislation, we had really hoped. . . . I'm still hoping; I'm waiting for the announcement from the Premier and from this minister. I'm sure she's listening very intently at this moment. I'm waiting for an announcement from this minister and from that Premier that the money -- any money, any penny -- that will be gotten from a successful lawsuit will be channelled right back into the health care system to help patients and people with smoking-related diseases. Without that commitment, the NDP's legislation is just another desperate effort by the Premier and the NDP to bail itself out of its budget mess.

[2:45]

I know that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has been very passionate in this House talking about the ill effects of gambling on families, of that addiction on its social and health care costs. They have not put one penny into looking at the health costs of that addiction. I sincerely believe that it's government's role to recognize public health risk and to encourage and assist people in making healthy choices. If this minister and this Premier were serious about helping patients and people who have tobacco addiction, they would do some things about it.

But the Ministry of Health, through MSP, which is medicare, does not fund lifestyle counselling by practitioners. It specifically excludes smoking-cessation counselling as an MSP benefit. You'd think that if they were serious about helping people, maybe some of those kinds of courses or counselling sessions would be on medicare, but that's not on there.

The single most effective smoking-cessation strategy clinically is the application of transdermal nicotine replacement therapy, or the so-called patch. You may have heard of Nicoderm and Habitrol, to name a couple. But that's not covered by Pharmacare as a benefit. You'd think, if they were really serious about helping people stop the smoking and tobacco addiction, they might offer a couple of those kinds of patches on Pharmacare. But they're not there; they're not being funded.

The next most effective smoking-cessation strategy is the use of oral nicotine resins, or nicotine gum. You've probably heard of that. The stronger strength, which is required by most heavy smokers, is not covered by Pharmacare, either, and it requires a prescription. The weaker strength is also not a Pharmacare benefit, although you can get it over the counter. Hypnosis and acupuncture for smoking-cessation purposes -- guess what -- are not covered by medicare.

We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death in our society. I would personally and vigorously support measures directed at reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in society. I would personally and very vigorously support strategies to help educate and help our children to choose healthy lifestyles.

What this government proposes is not a measure to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use in our society but rather to increase its share of profits from that industry. That's why 

[ Page 6112 ]

I'm a little skeptical about the government's reasons for introducing this legislation. If they are serious about reducing the addiction and about helping people, they would find ways and programs for doing that.

I have serious reservations about that. If they were serious about their smoking strategy, they would bring forward Bill M203, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, which was introduced by one of their own members, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. They would bring that forward and support it. We would pass it, because what that bill does is forbid the sale of flavoured tobacco. We know that the companies out there are marketing this flavoured -- I think it's cherry- and strawberry-flavoured -- tobacco. They're trying to entice our children into buying it and to get addicted. If they were serious, they would bring that bill forward. We would have passed it by now. But we haven't seen that in this House, either. So I have serious questions.

We've even heard the Premier; he's been on record as saying he thinks that if there are any lawsuits brought under this legislation, they're probably unlikely to succeed. Why is he saying this? Why are we bringing this bill forward in the House when he's saying that?

Notwithstanding those concerns, I have serious concerns about the implications of this bill and the precedent it sets for other litigants. There are concerns -- and we'll certainly raise them at committee stage -- with respect to the limitation period, issues of foreseeability and causation with respect to evidence, and restrictions placed on the court with respect to admissibility of evidence. These are all precedent-setting sections of the legislation.

I also have serious considerations about fiddling around with time-tested and legally challenged rules of evidence and the judiciary's impartial role in weighing and ruling on evidence in this bill. But we'll get into those in committee stage.

I think it's important that we do recognize that smoking is addictive. We need to make sure that we provide programs and a smoking strategy that deal with the health of British Columbians and with prevention and real strategies for real people -- not just looking at ways that the government can bring more money into their coffers and do with it what they will. We hope to get a commitment by this government -- and perhaps the minister will listen now -- that any moneys that are recovered through any of these successful lawsuits will go directly back into the health care system, because that's the only way that we're going to ensure that diseases that impact on our health care system are then funded through our health care system. We need to help people make lifestyle choices. We need education strategies, we need counselling, and we need treatment strategies around those kinds of issues.

Hon. Speaker, I don't oppose the bill. I have serious concerns about the way the bill is written, and we will take up some of those in committee.

I'll let the member for Kamloops-North Thompson perhaps speak to a concern he's raised in the House many times. With that, I'll defer the rest of my concerns to committee stage.

K. Krueger: Who could disagree with people who bring harm upon society having to pay the cost of that harm? The government of British Columbia is proposing to set a precedent with this legislation. I've asked this minister in the estimates debate, and I ask her now: how will she deal with the precedent that she's setting when the very same argument is used against this NDP government, against the cabinet, that was in power at the time that the massive expansion of gambling was ordered and authorized and launched in British Columbia on March 13, 1997?

We know, when the minister has said from the throne speech on forward, that tobacco is a dangerous and addictive product; we also know that gambling venues offer dangerous and addictive products. There is a huge body of evidence throughout North America that the more venues that are available to people in which to gamble, the greater the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling in a jurisdiction. That's a fact. I've produced many papers in this House, quoted from many journals, many articles -- all by people who would have no personal axe to grind with the industry were it not for the facts that they are duty-bound to present and that this government is duty-bound to pay attention to. But it either hasn't done so or has deliberately chosen to go ahead with the dangerous expansion of gambling in the face of that evidence, putting even more onus on them and even more liability, I suggest, should this same pattern of thought and this same rationale be followed in future cases brought on by victims of gambling addiction -- the addicts themselves and their victims, and they are many.

The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry recently published an article entitled "Diagnosis, Neurobiology and Treatment of Pathological Gambling." And there are a great many signatories. . . .

The Speaker: Member, excuse me. I'm going to just give you a caution. Will you take your seat for a moment, please. As you know, our practice in this chamber is to allow wide-ranging debate about the principle behind any given bill during second reading. If your comment, however, is going to be an extended dissertation on the subject of your very legitimate issue of gambling, then it is out of order. So I must ask you to please confine your remarks to this issue -- namely, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. I'll ask the member to please take that caution and compose his comments accordingly.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, I'll endeavour to do that. I'm sure that if I begin to stray, you'll alert me, because I have no desire to contravene your instructions.

The general point I'm trying to make on the principle of the bill is that if the principles that the Minister of Health was talking about are valid and hold, then those same principles will be discussed in some future legal proceeding, where this government will have to face up to the consequences of decisions that it's taken this very year.

The people who introduced the tobacco products to the consumers who have subsequently experienced health problems -- tobacco products on which this government and governments previous to it collected a wealth of taxes over the years -- doubtless didn't do so with the deliberate intention of killing their customers, but that's what the product has done. That's the point that the Health minister was making to us recently. So the Health minister feels, obviously, that British Columbia is entitled to recover for the expenses that have flowed from production of that product. I'm endeavouring to make the point that it's irrational and, I think, irresponsible for this government, on the one hand, to make that argument and, on the other, to create a whole new class of problems, a whole new type of addict, a whole new preponderance of social costs and of grief within families.

We see that youth are susceptible to advertising and to what's supposed to be cool and what society pushes at them. The Health minister was making that point herself a few 

[ Page 6113 ]

moments ago. Well, look at the advertising that this government does with regard to its gaming products: the Leslie Nielsen ads; the "I'm sorry, so sorry" ads that ridicule people for not buying the product; the "Hey, you never know," which you see on billboards all around the province. Surely, if the minister thinks that it's wrong for the tobacco industry to make its advertising exciting, glamorous and fun, as she just finished saying, then it's wrong for the government to be doing the same thing with products that are potentially dangerous and addictive, that are identified as dangerous and addictive.

Just the other day, MLAs throughout the lower mainland and Vancouver Island got a letter from a gentleman named Henry Jung, chartered accountant, general manager of Network Gaming International Corp., pressing his dangerous and addictive products and bragging about them. He actually says: "Our state-of-the-art and very user-friendly system for electronic hall bingo allows players to track up to 1,000 bingo cards automatically and increases players' spending three to four times over paper bingo play." Well, there we have it: exciting, glamorous and fun. Right?

This government and its agents are deliberately promoting something that is a dangerous and addictive product while bringing on this piece of legislation, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, wherein the government sets out to establish its right to engage in a lawsuit against another industry that's done the same thing in the past, according to this government -- and I agree with them. I agree that that's happened.

The experts that I began to quote a few moments ago -- and I won't take the time of the House to name them all because the article is certainly available from me or from the library to anyone who wants it -- include PhDs and medical doctors. They say things like this: "Prevalence estimates of probable pathological gambling from state surveys range from 1.2 percent to 3.4 percent with increased rates in states that provide increased opportunity for legal gambling." Well, look what's been happening in British Columbia since March 13, 1997: betting limits increased 2,000 percent; an Employment and Investment minister who says he's going to net revenue of 1,800 percent more than he has in the past.

Well, this government and governments before it have been enjoying that type of revenue from tobacco for years. Does that make those governments complicit? Does that eventually make those governments, this government, co-defendants?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You just don't get it, as usual. The opposition doesn't get it.

[3:00]

These experts, the doctors that I referred to earlier, go on to say that there is a generational factor to this. I don't think anyone says that about smoking. I hear that about alcohol addiction, but I don't think anyone says that about smoking. But these doctors say that female pathological gamblers are an understudied and underserved group, representing approximately one-third of pathological gamblers. Interestingly, 14 percent of the female gamblers' fathers and 4 percent of their mothers were also pathological gamblers, as such familial influence may be an important predictor of the development of pathological gambling. So here we have an even greater danger to society than anyone seems to suggest flows with tobacco, in that there's a generational effect to this addiction.

I see the Health minister shaking her head. Once again, I don't understand why someone who I genuinely believe cares about the people of British Columbia and is genuinely concerned about the cost to our health care system of tobacco, alcohol, drugs -- and in her heart, I believe, of gambling as well -- has been willing to go along with the Premier and the Employment and Investment minister and vote in favour of this expansion when it's going to do the very type of destruction to society that she's concerned about in this act.

Then these doctors talk more about youth, and they say: "Pathological gambling among adolescents and young adults has been on the rise. Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling among high school students are as high as 5.7 percent." We already know that before the expansion in British Columbia we had a frequency of problem and pathological gambling of close to 4 percent of the population, and we know that the percentage will increase with the number of venues that are added -- and this government has thrown the number of venues wide-open.

There are tremendous concerns about this, and I suggest that this is a time, when the government is pouring its intellectual capacity into studying and promoting this bill and advancing the cause of this bill, for the government to have a sober second look at its gambling expansion plans. It's not too late to change those; it isn't legislation. In fact, there isn't adequate legislation dealing with gaming in British Columbia. It doesn't exist at all. This government is flying by the seat of its pants on the issue, and it's incurring a tremendous social cost, and one that in the spirit of this bill and following the very thought process that has gone into Bill 37, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, I think it's incumbent upon this government and this Health minister to reconsider.

There are particularly negative effects on aboriginal populations of gambling addiction. There are also particularly negative effects on youth, and there's a particular proclivity amongst poverty-stricken groups to try and rise from their misery by turning to this pot at the end of the rainbow that gambling seems to represent.

[ Page 6114 ]

There are tremendous issues of child abuse and child abandonment, of spousal abuse, of suicide, of people dying because of the addictions that flow from this dangerous and addictive product.

The Speaker: Member, excuse me. I'm going to interrupt you again. I advised you of what the rules were, and I'm certainly prepared to acknowledge that you can indeed make comparisons for illustrative purposes, and that's fine. However, it seems that you are talking about something quite different from this act, and I must remind you to please make the focus this particular piece of legislation. I think you owe that to the rules of the House, member, and I hope I don't have to interrupt you again.

K. Krueger: It's not only possible to anticipate, but I've already seen a draft of it being done. One could take the word "tobacco" out of the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act and bring on one very similar called the "Gambling Damages Recovery Act," and the principles would be very much the same.

I'm going to wrap up shortly, in fear that I am trying your patience. But I feel a responsibility to ensure that this government realizes that it has set the framework for victims of gambling addiction to come back to the government's partners in gambling, and the government itself, for redress for a host of very serious issues that are going to flow as a result of gambling expansion. Indeed, the gates are already open; those things are already happening in British Columbia.

So I join with my colleague from Okanagan East in admonishing this government to be responsible in these matters. If it's wrong for tobacco industries to flog their dangerous and addictive product and hurt people as a result, then it's wrong for an NDP government to flog gambling and hurt people as a result.

It's not too late to reconsider, and I urge them to do that, no less so than I would if they were pushing drugs; no less so than I would support this move to hold people to account for the damage that their products have caused to our health care system and to our society and to many of the people who look to us and trust us, as 75 elected individuals who are responsible for looking after the interests of four million people and the interests of future generations -- and indeed of our whole society and this beautiful province.

It's wrong that people produce products that hurt the citizens of British Columbia, and it's even more wrong for governments to produce products that do so. I put that to the Health minister in good faith, and I hope that she will consider it.

M. Sihota: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: Just while that debate was going on, I noticed Mr. Sundher and Mr. Manek walking into the chamber, both educators in this province. I know a little bit about tobacco and gaming, but that's another story we'll talk about somewhere else, except to say that it's probably in the wrong chamber, because Education estimates are just down the street in the Douglas Fir Room. But I'd love to invite them to come downstairs and have a cup of coffee, after all members give them a warm welcome.

A. Sanders: I'd like to rise to address Bill 37, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. Tobacco has been one of those substances that's been around as long as we've been in North America. We brought North America the smallpox virus from Europe and brought back tobacco in the other direction. I don't know which was the worst of ways, but it's been an addiction that has been in North American society and transmitted all over the world.

There is nothing as addictive as tobacco. I have worked with a number of people on various addictions, and I can assure the Speaker that tobacco addiction is one of the most serious and difficult addictions to overcome. There doesn't appear to be an age at which this becomes the case. It is something that can become the case almost as soon as someone starts utilizing the substance.

However, I think the main issue of Bill 37 is really to delineate whether government is introducing this particular bill for the benefit of reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in society or whether, in fact, it is to increase their share of the profits from the industry. I think that really is the thesis of the entire argument, and the illustrious points around what it would do in order to combat tobacco in the face of young people using it is a moot point, I think.

If we look at tobacco illness, it does have a tremendous morbidity and mortality, and in terms of health care dollars, it is often the morbidity that is more important. In other words, those people who die from tobacco use, and do it quickly, probably save the health care system money. It is, unfortunately, those who suffer from the sequelae -- the consequences of years and years of smoking behaviour and the pathology they manifest, having done so -- that cause us the health care dollars.

I would very much like to see all the money raised through legislation such as the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act not go into general revenue but in fact go into health care. I think that if we had an instance of that kind of planning, we would find very few problems in terms of funding the health care that we all wish to maintain.

Like my colleague from Okanagan West, I'd like to mention my concern about the parallels between the use of metaphor concerning tobacco smoking and the other addictions that we as government purport to carry forward -- one being the selling of alcohol and the second, of course, being the increasingly massive gambling expansion within British Columbia. The minister again mentioned the metaphor of excitement, glamour and fun -- how smoking captures young victims with advertisements of excitement, glamour and fun -- and how this was certainly a problem, yet we do that with both of the other substances I mentioned.

I am very interested in the member for Kamloops-North Thompson saying that in a few years we could take Bill 37 and just change the name to "Alcohol Damages Recovery Act" or "Gambling Damages Recovery Act." The parallels are very profound. You wouldn't even have to write another bill. You could just use that as the prototype for all three pieces of legislation.

The sequelae of long years of smoking are heart attack, stroke and cancer. Both of these diseases are causes of early preventable deaths in both men and women, but I think the other two that we've mentioned -- gambling and alcohol consumption -- are also possibilities. Parallels need to be drawn between whether the actions of government here are for the purposes of reducing the prevalence of addictive substances or just to increase government's share of profits in every industry, because we have a government that cannot manage its books and the finances of British Columbia.

[ Page 6115 ]

What we looked at, if we're looking at preventive measures. . . . Again, this was discussed by the Health critic. If we are looking at tobacco, the most important measure is prevention. Prevention means putting money into those areas that would discontinue, stop or prevent people from smoking at all. The second preventive measure would be that of moderating activity, so that those individual who do in fact smoke cigarettes would have available substances that could moderate, decrease and hopefully cessate their behaviour.

Nicorette is one that very commonly does help, along with the nicotine patches and other smoking-cessation methods. Most British Columbians don't realize that when they go to their family doctors to get information on quitting smoking, the government does not fund that information. In other words, the family physician or health care worker in any other way is not able to give that information to the patient under the British Columbia MSP billing situation.

This is probably one of the areas where we have the most opportunity to stop smoking. In one-on-one contact with patients, at any level in the health care system, giving information on quitting smoking would be far more advantageous in terms of dollars spent than anything else we could do, yet none of these services are funded. Nor is hypnosis or acupuncture funded, or several other ways that people can help to get rid of cigarette smoking in their lives.

[3:15]

I will support this bill mostly because I think there is some good that can come out of it, but I will make it one of my personal interests to follow whether the money raised from the legislation in fact goes anywhere near health care or whether it goes into the large NDP funnel of trying to pay back all the things in our province that have been managed poorly.

R. Thorpe: I'll be brief in my comments here today. With respect to this bill, the most concerning thing to me is that it's not about health. It's about cash. That's the disturbing issue, because British Columbians have entrusted billions and billions of dollars to this government, and on two occasions they have not been told the truth about the budgets.

The balanced budgets that British Columbians were promised did not happen, and huge deficits did happen. This government is in a tremendous cash crunch, and when one cash grab fails, they move to another one. That's what they are doing here -- make no mistake about it. It's fashionable in the United States, and as we know, they get advice from the gurus there, so it must therefore be fashionable to do in British Columbia. That's what this government has chosen to do.

Also, as some people may have noticed -- we on the official opposition side certainly have -- the word of this session is "war." If it moves, the NDP government wants to have war with it. Now the latest target of war is the tobacco companies, because somebody in the States made a deal, and the Premier and the Health minister -- probably being concerned about her future and trying to get some finances in place for perhaps the next role -- are now mounting this war.

The fact of the matter is that this government takes out of the pockets of British Columbians $500 million a year for cigarette tax -- the second-highest in Canada -- and then they have the audacity to stand in this House and tell us they are concerned about people's health care.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: They are telling us. . . . And perhaps the member over there could just listen for a bit. When that member speaks, we usually try to listen attentively, because we never know what she's going to say. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You got that right.

This government takes in $500 million, and the minister stands in this House today and says how proud she is that they are going to double their commitment to stop smoking. That is now going to go to $3 million -- less than 1 percent. That is not a commitment to health care. That is not a gesture that shows they are concerned with the young people. It's just not.

Tobacco is a cash cow for this government. As I said earlier, it's about this government going to war with anything that moves. It's about this government, primarily the Premier, trying to get someone on the other side of the table so he can make his deal of the day or his deal of the week: "What is going on? We need our juice; we need a deal." It's about grabbing the cash, and that is wrong.

Then we see, to help fix the Premier's sagging image -- his much-warranted image, I might also add -- the Ministry of Health gets onside and writes this intimidating, aggressive, big-bad-bully letter and just happens to have it published in the Vancouver Sun so that we can show everybody in British Columbia how tough we are, how scandalous some of these people are.

Yet this government has no problem taking $500 million while putting back a mere $1.5 million to assist people who may have an addiction to tobacco problem. This is not a government that's concerned about health care.

Of course, they use threats. It's my understanding that this government has not yet even had the courtesy to sit down with the tobacco companies and see if there is an opportunity to work together to resolve the problems of the young people being addicted at an early age to cigarette smoking, or being attracted to cigarette smoking. As a former smoker, I personally had no problem shaking the smoking habit, but I understand other people do have some difficulty.

I guess my concern is that when this minister claims -- I'd better just get the words here, correctly -- "evidence of wrongdoing, improprieties by the industry; that is shocking," I would like to suggest that that is just posturing. That is just trying to give the image that we're fighting all evil -- this NDP government against the world. Because I'm sure -- no, I'm not sure, actually, now that I think about it -- that this minister is probably not aware that there was an independent study commissioned by the federal Department of Health two years ago that said cigarette companies in Canada were not tinkering with nicotine levels. The federal Minister of Health had to apologize.

Also, I believe this minister and her government have alluded that the companies may be putting something into the tobacco. If in fact that is true, we all know that is wrong. But 

[ Page 6116 ]

I'm not so sure that the minister is aware that the tobacco companies in Canada have to come clean on what they put in their cigarettes. I asked the minister if she was aware that under federal law, the tobacco companies must report all ingredients to Health Canada every three months. Those lists are publicly available.

But no, we don't get that side of the story, because we want to make sure they're seen as bad, evil people so the government can scoop the cash and put it in general revenue. If this was a government concerned with health care, they would be directing the money to health care. . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: . . .not into general revenue in the hope that the new Finance minister can have a huge, new cash grab.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Harry, you're in the wrong seat. I'm sorry, my impetuosity carried me away. But, Yale-Lillooet, in your seat next time.

Sorry, Okanagan-Penticton. Please continue.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You do have the opportunity, when you sit in that chair, to say what many of us would like to say from time to time to the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.

I've heard -- and I would ask the minister to confirm or deny this -- that in British Columbia we want to model our system under what the minister, I'm led to believe, has said are some of the successes of California and Massachusetts. That's what I've been told that the minister said. Well, I trust -- before we go much further -- that the minister in fact does her homework on what's happening in those two states with respect to smoking and does not just throw out the rhetoric to win the war. Some of the very people. . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: There can't be many more people left for the NDP government to declare war on, Mr. Speaker. I know it's hard, and I can understand why you're rubbing your head because of the noise that's taking place over there. I'll see if I have any Excedrin in here and send them over to you.

Very, very seriously -- this is a serious issue -- I urge this government to listen to the constructive solutions that we're putting forward. If you are concerned, you have an opportunity to show British Columbians that it's not the cash you're after. I know it's going to be hard for you, but show the people. Don't show them the cash, because you've got enough of it. Show them that you're concerned about health, that you're going to take whatever money you may or may not get from what I understand could be lengthy and costly litigation in Canada. I'm sure you'll make those decisions. You may make some for the wrong reasons.

My colleagues from Okanagan West, Okanagan-Vernon and Kamloops-North Thompson have made some very constructive suggestions to you today, hon. minister. Hon. Speaker, if this minister is concerned about helping young people who may have addictions or who need assistance in getting away from this product, spending a measly $3 million when you are taking in $500 million is a crime, one that you should not trumpet but one that you should hide from. Take this money and put some meaningful resources into it, and stop attacking everyone. Stop all the wars.

I trust that this minister would look to what some other very prominent people in Canada are saying -- elected people. In fact, today, by coincidence, I note that the Premier of Alberta is quoted in the Vancouver Sun with respect to this very subject.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Try to listen. I quote: "I do think it somewhat hypocritical for governments to continue to collect very, very healthy and generous taxes from the tobacco industry and at the same time sue the same industry that provides that cash." One of the questions that is going to be asked is: who are you going to go after next in your grab for cash? Grab for cash -- that's what it's all about. You know it and we know it.

I urge this government and some of its members to stop declaring war on everyone. Get people to the table, stop the rhetoric and build real solutions for real people who have real problems.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

G. Wilson: In speaking to Bill 37, I'd like to direct my remarks very specifically to the principle of what we're dealing with here. I think this is going to be a very important bill with respect to the way that jurisdictions, not just this one but other jurisdictions in North America, Canada in particular, are going to look at how we deal with the recovery of rising health care costs as a result of tobacco addiction.

I think it is an interesting approach that the government has taken, on the surface. What the bill essentially says is that the government is able to recover some or all of the costs associated with illness that is created as a result of somebody who has been addicted to smoking. On the surface, one would argue, you know, that that doesn't sound like an unfair proposition. However, I think we have to think this through a little bit with respect to what that means in terms of our direct approach to public policy.

At some point, I think that the company -- if you read the case history, and having gone through the case history. . . . For those people that are paying attention to this debate, the companies' defence is that while they may reluctantly now admit -- what they have steadfastly refused to admit, up until very recently -- that tobacco is indeed an addictive substance, or at least that their cigarettes are and the content that they put into the cigarettes that is added to the tobacco. . . . Their argument is that people aren't forced to smoke. Nobody's forcing you to pick up a pack of cigarettes, and nobody therefore is forcing you to smoke.

Their argument has been that therefore people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Being responsible for their own actions, if they choose to smoke -- if it's a choice -- means that if they become sick as a result of making that choice, then that's something that at a minimum they have to have shared liability and responsibility for, and at the optimum, from the company's point of view, the company should be absolved from.

The difficulty with that argument when it's advanced -- and certainly in terms of the broad principle one might argue: "Yes, we are all, each of us, responsible for the choices we make" -- is the fact that companies have deliberately targeted people with respect to the promotion of their product. Sec-

[ Page 6117 ]

ondly, it would appear, according to information that is now coming out of court rulings, predominately in the United States, that they've even added substances that make cigarettes even more addictive than they ordinarily would be.

[3:30]

Purists would argue in this debate that if we're going to look at that argument, then the obvious thing for government to do is to make cigarettes illegal, to just say: "This is a detriment to society, this is a huge cost to health care, and therefore we are simply going to make cigarette smoking illegal in Canada and close it down, shut the industry out and say that that's the decision that has been taken."

There are two problems with that approach. First of all, there is a long history of legality with respect to tobacco; and secondly, it would be almost impossible to enforce. Thirdly, I suppose -- if you added a corollary to that argument -- is that people who are already addicted are already in the system, so we still have those costs incurred to government, even if we were to say: "All right, from this point forward there will be no more cigarettes sold." Those purists take a simplistic view in that to alleviate our problems, all we have to do is simply make the substance illegal and somehow it's all going to go away. I don't think that's the case.

We come back, then, to the root of the defence that the companies have taken with respect to this question. They suggest that each of us is certainly responsible for our own actions. Frankly, I don't disagree with that. All of us have to take responsibility for what we do. For those of us who choose to smoke, that is a choice that is made.

I should say, by way of a disclaimer, that I've never been a smoker, so I don't know what it's like to be addicted to cigarettes. I made the choice early on that it was foul. I didn't like it. Even though I was under considerable pressure to start, I could never tolerate it, so I didn't choose to start. From that point of view, I can't speak from the position of somebody who has been addicted to the substance and then tried to get off it, unlike the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who found it reasonably easy to quit. I did, however, have two parents who both smoked, and I found it enormously disruptive. They eventually combatted it and got off it, but it wasn't until -- in the case of my father -- there was an issue with respect to health.

The real kicker comes when you realize that this addicting yourself to tobacco does have an immediate and direct effect on your health, and that is a real incentive to get off tobacco. At that point, I suppose we wade into a very complex and very difficult set of legalistic arguments, which, speaking to the principle of this bill, gets us into a bit of a quagmire. How is it possible to determine why a person starts smoking? It is impossible to note whether or not they start as a youth because they are under peer pressure. Do they start because they have been lured by seductive advertising? Do they start because they are under stress? Or, as is the case of people living in British Columbia today, did they start because they were recommended to start by physicians? What people do not know is that it wasn't too, too many years ago that doctors -- practising physicians -- actually prescribed smoking as a cure for certain nervous disorders and those sorts of things -- "Well, take up cigarette smoking" -- because it was considered to be a drug of sorts that would be able to provide some minimal cure for that condition.

We have come a long way as a society in recognizing the evils of addicting yourself to tobacco. For those people who would try to argue the principle that we're each responsible for our own action and therefore the government has no right to wade in and try to reclaim revenue from the company to offset the cost of this addictive substance. . . . They simply try to march us into such a complex and difficult argument, on principle, that it almost becomes impossible to regulate.

That leaves the direction that the government has taken. That is, we need to serve notice to the companies that if they are going to market addictive substances -- in this case tobacco -- the government is going to seek to recover costs associated with the health costs that are related to people who become sick -- or in this case "injured" is the definition in the act -- as a result of people's addiction to smoking. From this point of view, and as somebody who has always steadfastly said that government should not wade into the lives of individuals and should be extremely careful about trying to be the "super-parent" to people -- if you can accept that concept -- and that people have to be responsible for their own actions, I can see the benefit to going in this direction.

It strikes me that what we're really attempting to do is to not absolve people of the actions that they have taken with respect to the cost. We're not saying: "Okay, go ahead and willy-nilly smoke; we'll simply try to recover the cost when you become sick." What we're hearing from the minister and what we're seeing from other statutes that are in this Legislature -- and have been in previous sessions past -- is that we are now, as a society, genuinely trying to put efforts in place to restrict people from starting. That is the key: to get it in people's heads, especially young people, that this lure of getting addicted to tobacco is something that they must, above all, try to resist. That is beneficial.

There has been some hardship with respect to this policy, because as we know, tobacco companies have historically supported the arts, they've supported sporting events, they've supported a lot of things in society and have poured a lot of money into society in an attempt to be seen as a "good corporate citizen."

But the facts of the matter are absolutely indisputable. The fact is that (a) tobacco is addictive, and cigarettes are addictive, (b) they are harmful to your health, and (c) the rising costs of health care as a result of that addiction is something that society is now finding overwhelming and must try to deal with.

On the principles that I've outlined in this bill. . . . What I've done is attempted to try to trace my line of thinking in terms of whether or not this is good public policy or not, recognizing that there must be the right of an individual to make choices and that individuals must be responsible for the choices they make. I can accept the fact that in this case, in the case of tobacco and cigarettes, we must at this point move forward and take some action and put the companies on notice that there will be an effort made to recover costs associated with the addictiveness of their product.

[ Page 6118 ]

I hope that those who might hear or read this. . . . A number of people have approached me and said: "How can you support a bill that effectively says we are eliminating a person's responsibility or individual responsibility with respect to that choice?" I hope that the line of argument that I've presented is helpful to those who would now accept -- or at least understand, if they don't accept -- why I can support this bill. It is important, notwithstanding the fact that each of us is indeed responsible for our own actions, that we also have to recognize that there are other factors out there that make it very, very important that we now take seriously the addictive nature of cigarette smoking -- the direct physical cost to those people who are addicted and more broadly speaking, the financial costs that are borne by all of us as a result of those addictions.

So with that said, in second reading, hon. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill. I think it is a different approach with respect to public policy; it's one that is, no question, going to be a landmark with respect to how governments are going to start to deal with some of these larger and broader social issues with respect to health care costs. I think it will be interesting to see how this progresses and, if it is challenged -- and it likely may be challenged in a court of law -- how judges would read this bill in terms of the individual right of a corporation and also, more importantly, the right of government to act on behalf of all society.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Health, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much appreciate the debate that's occurred in the House. I must say there are times when I disagree vehemently with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and this is not one of them. In fact, this is one time when I have actually listened with a great deal of intent and made some notes, because the arguments put forward by him are, to say the least, compassionate. The arguments put forward are actually what this government is trying to achieve in dealing in a compassionate but responsible way with the very, very serious health issue here. So it's not often that we do this, but I'd like to say thank you to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Having said that, I am extremely disappointed in the Liberal opposition and the position that they have taken on this. Let me tell you why.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, you know, I actually think it's time that they actually listened. As has been articulated by some members opposite, this is a health issue. It is, without question the most important health issue facing British Columbians. Anyone who suggests that there is another health issue that in any way begins to approach the serious nature of this health issue does not understand in any way the addictive and destructive nature of tobacco. Frankly, I think it is irresponsible for any member to suggest that there is another health issue in this province that in any way approaches the damage done by tobacco.

I heard the members opposite from the Liberal opposition support big business once again. They supported the tobacco companies. In fact, the member for Okanagan-Penticton was, I think, reading from the tobacco company propaganda. It actually stunned me that any politician would be silly enough to rise and use those same arguments that the tobacco companies. . . . But you know what? I think maybe their words will come back to haunt them -- I actually do -- when the public gets hold of what the Liberal opposition position has been on this.

They supported big business in the form of tobacco companies. They supported big business again -- as with the pharmaceutical companies -- in their arguments against this bill. But you know what? I'll tell you something. It's very interesting that they've added a new twist to their support of big business. What they have said is: "NDP government, please don't in any way hold big business accountable for their costs to society. But while you're not holding them accountable, please spend a whole bunch more tax dollars" -- big spenders, the Liberals opposite -- "to let big business off the hook." It really was stunning.

[3:45]

Let's talk about who actually is paying the health care costs, because this goes to the nub of the problem that the members from the Liberal Party opposite simply don't understand. There is $480 million of tax money raised from tobacco products -- $480 million -- and do you know who pays that? It's the same people who are addicted to and being harmed by the product. It is the most cruel of all possible aspects of this issue. And they don't understand it. I wish they could actually set aside their partisanship in order to understand this issue. The same people who have been manipulated and lied to by the tobacco companies are paying the $480 million, and they're paying it to look after their own illnesses.

They are paying to die. It is as simple as that. People in British Columbia are paying taxes to die, and somehow these members opposite do not understand the seriousness of this health care issue.

Our government is on record saying that this is a health issue. If we could eliminate the death and the carnage associated with tobacco use, we would gladly not collect another nickel of revenue in tobacco taxes. And you know what? They simply don't understand that.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must tell you that the members opposite actually would hold our government accountable for the weakness of their federal fathers.

I heard a member there saying: "Well, why don't you ban it?" We have done that; we actually have done that in every possible area that we have jurisdiction over. We have the strongest tobacco prohibition laws against the sale of tobacco to minors. Now, if we actually wanted to make the product illegal, I hope the members opposite would rise up and demand of the Prime Minister of Canada to make the product illegal.

But they'd be hard-pressed to do that at the same time as defending the tobacco companies. It would be what I would call a mixed message: "Please, don't attack the tobacco companies and make them accountable. But could you make the product illegal, Mr. Prime Minister?" You know, I think they'd actually 

[ Page 6119 ]

have to caucus on that. I don't think they'd be allowed a free vote on that, do you? I think they'd actually have to make a decision. I think they'd actually have to get together and figure out a strategy on how to attack this issue.

This is a health issue of serious proportions that I think has probably affected every family in British Columbia -- 5,800 people die every year. Twenty kids a day take up smoking. Your daughters and your sons are taking up smoking every day, and they're not doing that because they have a choice.

I fully accept what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said about our having to be held accountable for ourselves. But I'll tell you that when you're a 12-year-old girl and you're being bombarded with advertising and propaganda, and where there is evidence over and over again that that's what the tobacco companies do -- they target kids, they target girls. . . . When you're being bombarded every single day to make a choice to start to smoke, I would say that a 12-year-old girl can't be held accountable for falling prey to that kind of propaganda.

We have asked the tobacco companies three simple things. One is to stop targeting our kids. You know, for anyone to stand up in this House and defend the tobacco companies, saying that they don't do that, is to really contribute to these massive, horrendous health outcomes themselves.

The other thing that we've asked the tobacco companies to do is to list what they actually have contained in their products.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And one member stands up again and defends the tobacco companies and says: "They've done that." Well, they haven't. Their parent companies in the United States have done it; the same parent companies that have little subsidiary companies here have actually done that, but the Canadian companies have not.

The last thing we've done, in order to avoid the use of this legislation, is say: "Pay your share of the health care costs, tobacco companies. Don't make the victims pay." The victims are already paying. They're paying $480 million a year. They're paying.

We're just saying to tobacco companies: "Stop making your huge profits." It was interesting to note last week that. . . . I think it was R.J. Reynolds that, at a shareholders meeting, said two things: "We're making unprecedented profits, and oh, by the way, we're not going to pay one red nickel, and we'll use all of your shareholder profits to fight any government in court that tries to make us accountable for our health care costs." Boy, that was an interesting message: "We get massive rising profits from this horrible product, and by the way, don't you dare hold us accountable for our product." That's what they said to the shareholders and that's what they're saying to every single British Columbian.

So it does take our government, I guess, to go to war. I guess it does take us to go to war and stand up for the health of British Columbians against the tobacco companies. If we have to go to war without the Liberal opposition, so be it. We're getting used to it, quite frankly. We're absolutely getting used to having to defend the interests of British Columbians in spite of the Liberal members opposite.

Second reading of Bill 37 approved unanimously on division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 52, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. M. Farnworth: Bill 52 is the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act that deals with a particularly specific and pressing issue in the city of Vancouver. It is an amendment that will give the city of Vancouver, through the amendment to the Vancouver Charter, the authority to regulate the conversion and demolition of single-room accommodations within the city of Vancouver.

This piece of legislation has come about because of a request by the city of Vancouver. It is not a piece of legislation that has been driven forward by the province. It's come about through a request by the city of Vancouver and by working with the staff of the city of Vancouver and within the ministry to develop a piece of legislation that will address the issue of conversion and demolition of single-room accommodation within the city of Vancouver.

As all of us know, the city of Vancouver -- indeed, the lower mainland and the province, but particularly in the area of housing -- is undergoing great, enormous changes these days. Over the last few years we've seen an explosion in the population. We've seen all different kinds of demographic changes take place. Nowhere has this had a greater impact than on the downtown east side. We have seen the rise of brand-new condo buildings in the west end of Vancouver. We've seen the demographic change in terms of a large Asian population on the west side of Vancouver. We are seeing gentrification take place on the east side of Vancouver around Grandview, Woodlands, Commercial Drive -- all kinds of changes taking place.

In some of these areas it has involved new people moving in and old people moving out to other parts of the lower mainland. We've seen an exodus in some ways, if you like, as a result of falling interest rates, where young families have moved out of the city of Vancouver to take advantage of cheaper land prices and cheaper housing prices in the Fraser Valley. That's resulted in a huge growth in population in those areas, as my own constituency of Port Coquitlam can well attest. We've seen a 25 percent jump in our population over the last five years.

What we've seen are demographic forces at work, market forces at work and change taking place. For many people, they're able to adapt to that change and they're able to cope with that change. But there are neighbourhoods within the city of Vancouver -- and they also occur to a lesser extent in different communities in the province like Victoria, Prince George, Kamloops, New Westminster; in general, the older settlements in the province -- around single-room occupancy hotels for people in the downtown east side who have nowhere else to go. They're on social assistance; they have substance abuse problems. There are all kinds of social problems that they're dealing with. There's a strong community there because the people need a good support network; they 

[ Page 6120 ]

need access to services. These services have developed and grown in the downtown east side to provide a support network for the community that lives there.

What's happening is we're seeing increasing pressure on neighbourhoods like the downtown east side as gentrification takes place -- as this dramatic change within the city of Vancouver takes place. Forces and pressures that were always in different parts of the city are now encroaching on their home -- on the area, the neighbourhood that they traditionally call home -- on their community. It's a community that's poor in terms of financial dollars, but it is a rich community in terms of support, looking out for each other and trying to hold on to a sense of what it is they've got.

Key to that are the rooming hotels. More and more this stock of housing has been depleted. We're seeing it under greater pressure as it's being looked at to be sold off to be converted into either high-income condominiums or to make way for new developments. So the city of Vancouver needs tools to deal with this problem.

What they've requested is an amendment to the charter that will allow them to regulate the conversion and demolition, so that they can accomplish a number of things. They can take stock of what's available, what type of accommodation is there now. They can say to the development community: "We know that change is going to take place; we know that this is not going to be a static neighbourhood; we know that there is change in the works, but we want to be able to regulate it. We want to be able to manage it; we want to be able to control it so that we can ensure that the primary interest -- which is the residents and the needs of the residents of the downtown east side -- can be protected; so that we can ensure that if housing stock is taken out, demolished or is replaced, we can make sure that either an equal number of rooms is put back in or more rooms are put back in, more units are made available; so that we can say that we understand why you may want to redevelop a particular piece of property, but we want to make sure that the interests of the people who are currently residing there are looked after and are protected -- and are recognized as such." A lot of people seem to think that all you have to do is build units. That's not necessarily the right thing. Single-room accommodation is an important component of the residential housing stock in the downtown east side, and it needs special measures to protect it.

The city has indicated to us what those measures are, what powers they want, and we've responded by agreeing to that request through this legislation. Some people have said: "Oh, you know, the world is going to end by introducing this legislation. There's going to be massive. . . . The city is going to act like Big Brother and all of a sudden clamp down on everything." What the city has committed to is putting in place a process, once this legislation is introduced, to go out and to talk with developers, with residents associations, with neighbourhood groups and community groups, and to look at where this legislation may be most applicably applied -- whether it be just the downtown east side, whether it be in other neighbourhoods within the city of Vancouver -- and after having once gone through an extensive consultation process, to bring forward a municipal bylaw that will deal with the priorities that they've been able to identify in discussions with people in the community, with community groups, with housing groups, with the development community, with the hotel owners.

That's a very important step, because this piece of legislation is an enabling piece of legislation. It is giving the authority to the city of Vancouver. It's not saying: "Thou shalt do this, or thou must do that." It's saying: "Here are some broad powers that we believe that you can exercise responsibly in ensuring the preservation and ensuring the control over the responsible renovation and change in an important neighbourhood within the city of Vancouver."

This piece of legislation is not going to solve all the problems either for the downtown east side or for housing in Vancouver. It's part and parcel of an overall long-term strategy, it's part and parcel of an overall long-term thrust, of which all three levels of government have a role to play. Unfortunately, some levels of government. . . . One level of government, in particular, seems to want to vacate the field and abandon the traditional role as a provider of housing and shelter in this country and in this province, and that's the federal government. They have abandoned their role as a builder of housing in our communities and in our province. They've abandoned that role, and it's a role that the poorest in our communities counted on. It's a role that those who are most in need counted on. They have abandoned it, for whatever reason. They've left it to communities and to the provinces to pick up the pieces.

You know, this province has picked up and carried forward the mantle of responsibility. That's why I'm proud that this ministry, this government, is building more units of housing than any other province in this country. In fact, we are one of two provinces in this country that are still building housing for those in need. Last year we built over 600 units, and I expect soon to be able to make an announcement on the number of units we'll be able to build for this year.

But those units -- while important and while fulfilling an important need -- don't solve the whole problem either, because the demand is greater than what we're able to build at this time, what we're able to afford. The cities, the local governments, have important roles to play, and they recognize that. I give them full credit for that. Just yesterday, I attended, along with my colleagues from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Burrard, the groundbreaking ceremony of the new Portland Hotel, in which the city wrote down the value of the land by 41 percent to enable a project that will provide 86 new units to be built.

So they've recognized their responsibility, and they recognized it when they made the request of the province for this legislation. Because they know that if they don't have these powers, they know that if they don't act now, over the next few years the pressure on single-room occupancy accommodation in the city of Vancouver is going to be ferocious. It's going to be ferocious in the same way that it was during Expo, when we witnessed the demolition of three-storey walk-up apartments in Kerrisdale and in the affordable neighbourhoods of the city of Vancouver. We saw people displaced from long-term residences where they had lived for many, many years, and there was nowhere else for them to go. At that time, the tools that the city required weren't in place, and the political will wasn't in place, to stop that or to ensure that there was an alternative for people to go to, that there was an affordable housing supply to go to.

So we're saying today: "We know change is coming, and we want to manage it. We want to ensure that the interests of the people of those neighbourhoods and of those communities are protected, that we recognize their interests, their needs, their wishes and their desires first have to be taken into account." This piece of legislation will do that. This piece of legislation is a valuable tool to the city of Vancouver, and it's one that I'm proud to stand here and introduce. I look forward 

[ Page 6121 ]

to the comments of the members opposite and of all members of this House, and I look forward to the support of all members in this House.

R. Coleman: Thank you to the minister for his opening remarks. My first remark today would be that everything that we do in any marketplace, housing in particular, has an impact. If we remove one thing out of a marketplace, something always pushes back. This is particularly the case in the situation with SROs. SROs in Vancouver are not the only SRO issue in this province. There are SRO issues in Burnaby, New Westminster, Kelowna, Victoria and Kamloops and other jurisdictions. The unfortunate thing about this piece of legislation. . . . First of all, it only deals with amendments to the Vancouver Charter and doesn't bring in legislation that deals with SROs across the province. Because at some point in time, we're going to have to deal with the entire marketplace and the entire concern that we have for that marketplace.

The other unfortunate thing is that it is July 1997, and this government was elected in 1991. In the last six years, we've seen 400 SROs per year disappear; 400 units per year have disappeared out of the Vancouver marketplace in each year that this government has been in power. We've lost somewhere around 2,400 single-room occupancy units in the last six years. In actual fact, that's not good because we are left today with about 6,000 SROs in Vancouver, which is not the number that we require in order to meet the needs of the people of our province.

Beginning in the 1970s, we saw a lot of urban renewal take place across North America. That urban renewal had a serious impact on a variety of areas, particularly on single-room occupancies in major centres. It was recognized -- as we went through this in various cities and various areas, as we changed bylaws and as we tried to flex and come to grips with this particular problem -- that there had to be something done. If you look at the urban centres across North America, the protection of SROs is directly related to the number of people on the street that are homeless. That's why it is important that we have bylaws and we have controls with protection of SROs. This step forward with the city of Vancouver is vitally important for only one jurisdiction in the province, but it is important.

[4:15]

I think it's very important that we realize that that affects. . . . We saw that effect during Expo 86 -- as the minister has reflected -- on some of the demolition and changes that took place in the city of Vancouver, and we're seeing it today with some of the urgency some people have to want to redevelop sites which are SROs in Vancouver. We have to come to that particular balance between the ownership and property rights of the people that own the property and the ability to have an alternative use if the particular building is not suitable for occupancy.

One of the concerns with the bylaw -- and I'm sure the city of Vancouver will go through this as they go through their public process -- will obviously be to ensure that this balance is there between the property owner and the building itself.

The one thing I'd hate to see is us coming out with legislation and a bylaw in a municipality that actually discouraged people from maintaining their product, so they let it run down to the point where there's a forced demolition or forced loss of stock and we get into this process of having to contribute back into a fund for the reproduction of stock. I'll get into the reproduction of stock in a minute, because that is one of the critical areas that the minister and I discussed in the Housing estimates with regards to housing, in particular the SROs: how we're going to replace this stock to meet the needs of the marketplace in the future.

One of the comments the minister made is that we are one of the few jurisdictions that is still building housing as a housing program -- social housing -- in our province. That's true, although it doesn't really apply to single-room occupancies to the same level as it does to family housing and some special needs housing, because we have limited funds and limited numbers of allocation that we can have.

In estimates, we canvassed the issues with regards to how we deliver this particular housing, what uses there should be and how they should be managed with amenity space and what have you. It's important, when we discuss SROs, that we deal with that as one of the options in the future.

I'd like to just deal with BCHMC's -- our own Housing Commission's -- philosophy with regards to single-room occupancies, just so that we can have sort of an idea where they have come from. They've recognized that the threshold of downtown seniors was 45 years of age, with a more flexible definition with that age bracket disabled. Because a lot of the people that are in single-room occupancies are people that are suffering from some form of addiction or mental illness, it is a specific and very complex market that we're dealing with, particularly on the downtown east side of Vancouver.

One of the things we should look at as we go through this whole SRO discussion with the city of Vancouver -- and hopefully, the city will remember this, and other municipalities will, as well -- is that on the redevelopment of product, we have to remember that an SRO is still that. To reproduce the product, we should try to keep it to as much flexibility. . .as far as being self-contained units with a minimal amount of space and with regards to being able to produce as much product as possible to replace any product that we lose. Our critical part is the saving of product or replacing it at the same or higher levels than we already have.

One of the first things we should probably look at is our ability to manage that particular product if it is reproduced in the marketplace. We should take into consideration that the shelter allowance today from Human Resources, for a single, is about $325 a month. And $325 a month has a debt-servicing capability at only a certain level. We look at that debt-servicing capability. Plus we look at the municipal taxation levels with regards to these in particular, and whether there should be some forgiveness of municipal taxes by municipalities trying to protect or produce stock, and at some of the other options with regards to offsites, onsites and cooperation with regards to construction of new stock. It's important that we bring those into our thought process.

In addition to that, as we reproduce SROs we must always remember that when we're reproducing a small unit. . . . This is what we're going to end up doing if we really want to replace the stock. If we go to a larger one-bedroom unit to replace SRO stock, as we go through this bylaw and this bill discussion, we are into a situation where it costs us so much to reproduce a particular unit that we may have been able to build three instead of one, if we were more thoughtful in our approach to our construction and design of the particular units.

[ Page 6122 ]

I had a meeting yesterday with some people from the housing industry with regards to this particular issue and some other issues. I found it interesting that they were of a similar mind to me, that the replacement of an SRO stock. . . . These are the people who are dealing with it down on the east side of Vancouver, down on the streets, who are saying to me, "When you replace a unit with a small kitchenette, a bathroom area and the bedroom," which basically, even in the definition of our own reports from the provincial government that were done for us, is the ultimate replacement of the SRO. . . . The maximum would be that you go to a one-bedroom unit, where you have a living room, dining room and all the rest of it. But if you go to the SRO itself in that description, that's the description, you know, that we'll be using.

It was interesting because. . . . I don't know if I had the discussion informally. I'd have to go back to Hansard to see whether we discussed it in estimates. But one of my contentions was that to build the SRO, remember to build some maximum amenity space in the facility for other uses, so that people who are in smaller confined units have eating areas and social areas or what have you in the facility. Interestingly enough, the people that represented the industry, who I met with yesterday, had the same thought with regards to SROs, with regards to that marketplace.

I find that it's good to see a piece of legislation come forward with regards to this, to protect this product, because obviously the loss of the product means more people on the streets, because we don't have a product that we can replace this with. What people out there should understand is that this is not the greatest place to live. If you've ever toured some of the downtown hotels that are SROs, they're not a pleasant place. To me, they're not a place that I, or probably most people in this House, would want to occupy. It's something that makes you shiver, the fact that we do have members of our society actually living in this type of facility. It's not something to be proud of. So the protection of this stock is. . . . We're actually protecting some stock that we're not proud of. But it's necessary to protect it, because there's nowhere else for them to go.

What we should do as we move through this process is also put into establishment some inspection criteria, renovation criteria and replacement criteria, so that down the road we can actually replace this stock with the moneys that we have in our own system.

The interesting thing that I found when you're dealing with SROs is that although there are the 6,000 or so in Vancouver, there's actually 13,000 to 15,000 in the entire province. I get back again to this. Although it's amendment to the Vancouver Charter, it is something that we should be looking at. I know we've discussed this, that we should be looking at it on a broader basis with regards to this particular type of legislation. My concern is that as we go through this discussion, we remember where the situation is.

You don't have to go back very far. Twelve years ago in Vancouver we had over 10,000 single-room occupancy units. Today we have about 6,000, so we've lost 4,000 units. It will be up to the initiative of the city of Vancouver whether they actually proceed posthaste with the bylaw or whether this legislation just enables them to do it at some point in time in the future.

The concern I have with that particular comment is, first of all, that this legislation deals with a number of issues that I want to deal with in committee, but one of them is the establishment of the SRO date, which is the establishment of first reading of this bill in this House as the date that all SROs in the city of Vancouver are governed by.

The difficulty with the legislation, however, is that not only does it do that, but when it gives you this situation with regards to that date being established, the legislation also goes on to say all or part of a building can be established as an SRO.

So the difficulty, if this enabling legislation doesn't move forward to a bylaw in a fairly quick period of time, will be how we are going to go back a year to decide. I know that bylaws don't move fast in any city. They never have in any municipality I've ever dealt with. But if the city of Vancouver had optimum movement and got it done, let's say, in six months, we would be to the end of this year and early 1998 before we would actually get into the position where the bylaw was in place and we could actually start designating the SROs.

The interesting thing I find about this legislation is that it allows for a partial designation of a building, for a designation by building and for a designation by an area. So you could say the whole downtown east side of Vancouver is an area, or you could say a specific building in Kerrisdale is an area, or you could say a specific portion of a building. There are two problems I see with that part of the legislation, which we'll probably get into in more detail in committee.

The legislation only allows for the posting of the designation in the lobby of the facility -- of the unit, of the particular building that is designated as an SRO. So if I have a hotel in the east side of Vancouver, where you've designated 30 of my rooms by number because they're monthly rentals today as SROs, you will post that in my lobby. That's the only posting.

My concern comes back to a recordkeeping situation as to the loss of information of what is an SRO and what isn't. My preference would have been -- and we'll discuss this in committee -- that if you're going to deal with it, you would deal with it similar to the way you dealt with the Condominium Act conversions, where you deal on title -- dealing with something on title to deal with the designation -- and the conversion process is tied in to a broader spectrum of approach, so there's a broader spectrum of control and some more clearly defined guidelines with regards to it.

The other thing with regards to SROs is basically. . . . This goes back to what I just said with regards to title. Basically, we're trying to establish some restrictive covenants on the use of a particular building. The use goes to two things: the restrictive covenant either goes to a bylaw on conversion of an SRO to another use with regards to the displacement of people when they are displaced, when there's a remodelling that takes place with regards to an SRO; or if somebody wishes to demolish their SRO and build something else on the site, there's some form of compensation that's coming back.

These are restrictive covenants that can either be placed on title or not placed on title. But the difficulty I've always found when you get into these sorts of discussions with regards to land use and building use is that if they're not somewhere with regards to some sort of covenant, then what happens is oftentimes they get lost in interpretation, they get lost in discussion, and they get lost in the ability to actually enforce the restrictions on the particular building.

I'm surprised that the city of Vancouver, if they were involved in the design of this particular legislation, as the minister said, has let this one slip by. Maybe they haven't; maybe they have something to put in their bylaw. I know in dealing with the city of Vancouver over the years that one of their strengths was the use of certain types of covenants to protect uses within buildings that they allowed to be developed in the city.

[ Page 6123 ]

This is not new to the city of Vancouver. There's been section 215 covenants with regards to -- what would it be? -- a seniors' building or other kinds of uses on the facilities put in by the zoning and development department of the city for years, and this is not really unusual with regards to it. I'm surprised that the legislation doesn't make more specific reference to it. I'd be curious in committee as to whether there were discussions with the city with regards to that particular use of the bylaw.

There are two definitions of SROs in one report I dealt with that sort of outline SROs. It gives you sort of a flavour of what we're dealing with here in Canada versus the United States. In the United States, people living in SROs are not considered to be homeless, even though they may live in inadequate shelter. In Canada, people living in SROs are considered to be relatively homeless as their shelter is for the most part not adequate. It's just a difference of philosophy. In actual fact, in our definition even people who are living in adequate SROs are living in what we consider to be a homeless situation, because it is no place where we would want citizens of our country to live.

I think it's important when we go through the discussion in committee that we recognize that. As we go through that in committee, we will find a number of objectives that have to be accomplished here. One is obviously the protection of the stock. Two is the replacement of the stock as it moves forward and how we're going to handle that. I've got some very specific thoughts on that with regards to that in committee, how we can do that. Hopefully, we can take back a message to the city and into the industry in general. Three, how do we get the stock that exists improved so that it's better than what it is, so that we can renovate it or can have incentives to renovate or to move the marketplace to provide a better product to the people that are living in what they're living in now?

I just thought quickly, as we go through this, that we might want to take a quick look at some other jurisdictions within Canada with regards to SROs. There's a number of them. In Quebec, for instance, their housing department, in a partnership with the city of Montreal, has renovated a number of rooming houses with regards to product in the city, in cooperation with owners. In some cases they have actually acquired older buildings at smaller amounts per unit and renovated them. The debt servicing was still able to carry the units for the value of the rent of the SRO, which I found to be an interesting model in that it probably is one that could work within our particular product range.

[4:30]

In 1986, the numbers -- interesting in this marketplace -- are hard to find. It's not like we go out and seem to research SROs on a regular basis, but in '86 there were 184,000 SROs in Ontario. So you can imagine how important it was for them to protect their stock if there were that many in that province. If you took them out of the marketplace, it would be kind of scary.

In the city of Ottawa, the non-profit housing corporation called City Living manages close to 4,000 units of SROs. In 1987 the corporation, in conjunction with CMHC, constructed a 55-unit SRO called Bronson Avenue Rooming House. I haven't had the opportunity since reading that to contact Ottawa and find out what that was, how that product was designed and what was in each individual SRO. I'd be curious to see how replacement stock is also being handled with regard to this particular marketplace.

The important thing is that most of these corporations and cities basically have the same objectives: to maintain a supply of affordable housing for low-income, single persons -- which is what we are trying to do here -- to ensure that rooming houses, if I can use that term, or rooming hotels, meet some property management standards. I don't know that we are accomplishing that here, or whether we are going to try to accomplish it in the bylaw, but at some point in time, as I say, we have to address it as a larger issue.

Maintaining a healthy and secure living environment is obviously important for people who are going to be living in these particular residences -- ensuring that the management is secure, that the management is professional, that the building is run correctly and that they maintain a liaison with the neighbourhood and community support services for the purposes of consultation and referral.

I think this comes back to the expansion of amenity space for these particular facilities. It also comes back to the discussions that we are going to have with regards to future protection of these particular items. Frankly, to protect the stock is one thing, but to have services in the community and also activities within the community for the expansion of these people's ability to have other things in life is very important.

The current policy of the city of Vancouver as it exists with regard to SROs is just basically: ". . .to maintain, upgrade and increase the stock of core needed housing in the downtown, and one-to-one replacement of SROs in the downtown south." That's the city of Vancouver, May 16, 1991. I haven't, unfortunately, been able to get any statistics from the city at this point in time as to how they have done since May 16, 1991, with regards to that particular policy. The principles are fairly good, and I think if their principles are applied to their bylaw, then frankly, we'll have some success with this particular piece of legislation, which is what we are all trying to accomplish.

They also have a standards-of-maintenance bylaw. They have made some progress on this. In the nineties, though, rather than closing down substandard hotels, the city has basically a 60-day period where the owners are subject to undertaking the required repairs by the city. There is some difficulty, evidently, with the enforcement and the pushing of this particular bylaw. There may be some strengthening that can come with regard to this as we go through this other option.

The interesting thing with regard to SROs, however, is basically that our provincial government already has draft SRO policies. They came out of a couple of reports. I'm going to refer to one which was done by some people who are well known down on the Vancouver east side. The reason I refer to it is because it was done in January 1994, and I think it's probably the most current summary or report with regard to policy today. I just want to touch on those policies so that as we get into the committee stage of this debate. . . . I'm sure the minister will gladly read all the Hansard from this afternoon by tomorrow to remember what I have to say, because I'm sure I have his rapt attention.

The first thing is to discourage the demolition of SROs unless there is a one-to-one replacement with self-contained 

[ Page 6124 ]

units or pay in lieu of fees. Obviously, when we get into committee stage of this debate, we are going to have some concern about the pay in lieu of fees -- how we are going to calculate that number so that we can protect future stock. Also, you have to remember that what we're going to have to define is a self-contained suite with regard to an SRO.

"Encourage the construction of new SRO units by withholding funding for construction for proposals that do not include self-contained units." Basically, what we are saying there is that we don't want any hotel-type units in the SRO marketplace; we want some self-containment with regard to a provincial policy. I know that when we canvassed some of these issues during estimates, we hadn't really put this policy in place provincially. We may want to look at it as a result of this debate.

We are going to encourage the retention of SROs as a low-income housing stock, facilitate the rehabilitation of SRO units for residential uses by low-income people, and facilitate the operation of SRO units by non-profit organizations or public bodies. We can get into the discussion with regard to non-profit organizations and public bodies, but obviously on the downtown east side there are a lot of non-profit groups that provide very, very good service to people living in single-room occupancies with regard to the other services that they require: drug rehabilitation, medical services, whatever the case may be.

"Provide capital grants for non-profit or public SRO upgrading and subsidies for operation," which goes back to some of the models like in Quebec and Ontario, where that has been used successfully. It was also used successfully in some jurisdictions in the United States where they managed to salvage some product.

"Discourage the conversion of existing SRO residential units to tourist or other use." I think that's the intent of the legislation with regards to the establishment of a bylaw in this particular regard. However, we don't have control over the bylaw; we only have control over the legislation. And my concern with the legislation, again, is that it's only covering one jurisdiction.

There are four more policies that we have that have been proposed to our government with regards to SRO policies. Another one is to encourage training and employment opportunities for homeless people and those at risk of being homeless, and the construction and rehabilitation of SRO units and the ongoing SRO operations. Not to provide a direct subsidy to tenants of SROs, but rather, to subsidize operational functions and those hotels operated by a non-profit or public organization. . . . That particular policy is actually a very interesting one in the fact that it shows a different initiative with regard to how we will handle the management of product and its successful financial future. I think it's one that's worth discussion in one of the sections of the debate.

"Encourage tenant organizations and hotels operated by non-profit organizations" -- I think we've been successful in some of those areas, and we've started some of this -- and also, ensure that during housing renovation, obviously, the existing tenants are taken care of. The interesting thing about this is that a lot of this parallels what we already do for conversion from rental to strata-title. A lot of this is already parallelled; the only difference is that we're only doing it for one jurisdiction in the city of Vancouver. We're not doing it for the entire province in this particular case, which is obviously going to be a concern in jurisdictions such as Victoria, where we have some older SROs that have very difficult and dangerous situations with fire escapes, no sprinkler systems. . . . It is a public health consideration that has been out there for some time. It's been brought forward by the city, and they've been trying to deal with it. I'm sure they wouldn't have minded having some consultation on how we might have been able to help them out with their difficulty.

There was another example in Kamloops, where an SRO was built, amenity space was required, but because there wasn't flexibility within some of the zoning requirements, they weren't able to do it, and they ended up getting a restaurant on the lower level. And in Kelowna we have some SRO concerns, as well, particularly with regards to the fact that it's a seasonal marketplace in Kelowna. We have largely single women in their fifties and above in SROs in Kelowna that are displaced during the high-traffic season and have difficulty with regards to their occupancy elsewhere in the city during the particular two-month period when they're at risk.

I just want to touch on a couple of things with regard to this particular legislation that I have concerns about. One of them is the very broad-based power given to staff of the city of Vancouver, without having to go to council, if council so chooses by designating either the director of planning or a delegate to make certain decisions. I'm concerned with some of the appeal processes that may be available to people with regard to it and the ability to negotiate with the city with regard to compensation. I have some concerns with the bill itself, with regard particularly to the restrictive covenants and the definition of "when funds are paid in lieu" -- where those funds have to go and specifically what those funds have to be used for, and what those replacement funds will be used to construct. . .what design and what uses those will be.

I think those are all critical issues with regards to single-room occupancies, because if we don't address them going in, we will find that we're designing and building the wrong product. And if we start to design and build the wrong product, we will not replace enough product, and we will not build more product in the future, and as a result of that we're going to create a larger social problem in that we're going to create more of a need for citizens of our society to have to live on the street. I think that we have to philosophically come to grips with it technically, but we also have to come to grips with that as far as how we're going to handle that.

I have some very specific suggestions for committee debate, and I have some very specific amendments. Hon. Speaker, there will be some amendments made which I have placed on the order paper with regards to this legislation for committee. I look forward to the debate. I think it's a first step forward with regards to protection of single-room occupancies. I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. I know that we will enjoy refining this some more and working on it together for the future of this particular product and other products, so we can make sure the people of our streets have a safe and decent place to live.

J. Kwan: I rise today with pleasure to support this bill. This bill, I guess, on the face of it may not mean a whole lot for a lot of people; however, to the residents of the downtown east side, to the residents of the Granville strip, this bill is critical. It is critical not because it simply enables the city of Vancouver some authority to try to preserve single-room-occupancy hotel rooms in the downtown east side, but it really means, I think, hope for the residents of the downtown east side, hope for the residents of the Granville strip. Many of them do not choose to live in substandard housing. They do not choose to do that, but they are there because they do not have the financial means to choose to live elsewhere. So from that point of view, this bill is critical to the lives of many people in our communities.

[ Page 6125 ]

This bill comes from a request of the city of Vancouver for the province to amend the Vancouver Charter. You know, I was a councillor prior to becoming the MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I remember that at the time I was on city council, there had been many times when I tried to move forward on city bylaws or changes within the city's practice to protect such housing stock in the city of Vancouver. Currently in the downtown core of the city of Vancouver, there are approximately 7,500 SRO housing units, most of which are in the downtown east side, with some along the Granville Street corridor. At that time, the city of Vancouver did in fact have some measure to preserve or to protect SROs in that there was a demolition replacement bylaw. At the time, the demolition replacement bylaw required that there be $1,000 contributed to a fund which the city of Vancouver would have and that that $1,000 would then go towards replacement units. As we all know, in order to build a unit of housing, just a general unit of housing in the city of Vancouver, it costs us approximately $100,000. So as you can see, there will be many units that need to be demolished before we can actually build one unit of housing for the residents. Consequently, this legislation is critical to the preservation of housing in the downtown east side.

When I think about the downtown east side, I start to think about what it is that we're talking about in terms of the SRO housing units. We're talking about an approximately ten-by-ten room; that is about 100 square feet. We're talking about a room that costs individuals approximately $325 a month to rent -- in fact, the highest rental costs on a per-square-foot basis in our entire city. It's quite astounding if you think not only just about the size of it but also the condition of these units. So what are we talking about when we want to preserve these units? These units are by no means housing that I think all of us would wish to live in. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, many people are there because of poverty. Many people are there because they don't have the financial means to live elsewhere.

[4:45]

This is a step, as one component within the different levels of government, towards preserving housing. This is the preservation of housing so that we can begin to eliminate some of the pressures that are placed on the communities of the downtown east side, particularly the Granville Street corridor, and other areas in the province. It will allow for lifting the development pressures that have been rampant in the downtown east side community and the downtown south community. It will allow for the pressure that comes from the need of some of the owners to perhaps turn a higher profit by converting the existing units for tourist use or backpacking purposes. That has already begun, as well.

We have, in fact, lost many units as a result of that. Most tragic of all is that we will lose some of these units because of the poor condition they are in. We could lose some of these units because of fires or simply the neglect of the owners to ensure that the city of Vancouver's maintenance bylaws are enacted and enforced to preserve these units. The maintenance is lacking in some of these units because of the slum lords, quite frankly, with their irresponsibility in that regard, and it sometimes forces the closure of these units, thereby losing some of this housing stock.

When we put forward this legislation, it is one measure to preserve housing for the communities of British Columbia and particularly, in my instance, in the downtown east side. But that is not enough; this alone is not enough. There are many other measures on which the province has been embarking and needs to continue to embark to ensure that there are housing options for residents in our communities.

Very recently, as the hon. minister mentioned, we were at a ceremony celebrating the Portland Hotel society groundbreaking just this Monday. The Portland Hotel society is, in fact, looking at building housing much like the current hotel that they're operating in the Vancouver-Burrard riding. One of the important things about this community and about the Portland Hotel society is that they're not just providing housing to residents in the downtown east side; they're also providing hope to the residents of the downtown east side and to other residents who can look towards the Portland Hotel as a model.

When we talk about hope, it's not great and grand when we think about the scheme of everything. It is merely hope for everybody in our communities, for them to be able to have a home that is decent, that is affordable and without them needing to fear that they will be evicted by the landlords in the community.

This piece of legislation will enable the city of Vancouver to proceed with consultation and to proceed with bringing a set of bylaws that will safeguard the conversion. . .the demolition of SRO units in our communities in the downtown east side, in the city of Vancouver. Beyond that, there is much work to do after we have passed this piece of legislation. What has to be done is that all of the residents in our communities have to go forward and participate with the city of Vancouver as they go through their consultation.

There are some people who do not want to see this piece of legislation go through and, in fact, would not want to see the bylaws to enable the protection of these units, for a variety of reasons. The city of Vancouver must not and cannot collapse under those pressures. It is incumbent on all members of our community to go forward and speak in support of a strong piece of legislation which will actually protect and give real protection to the residents of the downtown east side as we work towards building new housing stock for the people who need it the most and for the people who do not live in substandard housing by choice but are there because they don't have the financial resources.

It is with delight that I support this piece of legislation, and I'm glad to hear that members opposite will also be supporting this piece of legislation. I look forward to members opposite, along with this side of the House, working with the city of Vancouver to develop that bylaw, which is going to be vital if this piece of legislation is actually going to be effective with its intent.

Finally, I would also urge members opposite to work with this side of the House toward getting the federal government back to the table to provide housing dollars in our communities. The federal government has abdicated its responsibility 

[ Page 6126 ]

since 1993. There has not been one single dollar from the federal government towards housing projects and building new social housing for our communities. British Columbia is one of the two provinces left that are continuing to do that despite the federal government's withdrawal. I look forward to the day when the federal Liberal government will come back to the table, and we'll see them make that commitment that housing is, in fact, a priority for all residents in our country, that it is a right and that they want to participate with all levels of government in ensuring that we materialize that right.

V. Anderson: This moment is an opportunity to rise and speak to the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act -- which has to do with single-resident occupancy, at the request of the city of Vancouver. As has already been mentioned, it has a far wider ramification than just the city of Vancouver. The same thing is true for New Westminster, Burnaby, Prince George and throughout the whole of our province.

It's interesting in our day, when we talk about human rights and discrimination, that one of the groups -- when it comes to housing, particularly -- which has been overlooked very much in our concern for human rights and concern about discrimination. . . . We have been concerned with family housing. We have been concerned recently with housing for single-parent families and their special needs. We have been concerned with housing for those who have physical and mental disabilities. We have been concerned with housing for seniors, and we have been concerned with housing for youth. Seldom has there been, in all of these concerns, a concern for the single adult of any age, and particularly those who are from 45 to 60 years of age. That's partly the area and the persons we're talking about in this particular discussion.

About a month ago I was down at a forum conducted by the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. It was a forum on single-occupancy housing. The people of the community -- who are part of the DERA organization -- were there talking about the housing that they lived in, the threats that were being brought upon them as that housing was being threatened and taken away from them and their desire about the kind of housing that they would like to see in its place.

It was interesting because one of their urgent items was a hotel right next door to DERA, a hotel in which many who were at the meeting lived. This hotel had been condemned by the health department and was recommended for almost immediate closure. One of the urgent requests of that group was that, at least for the immediate future, that building remain open. Though it was condemned, though it was unsanitary, though it was unhealthy, they urgently requested that it be maintained. Even as it was, it was better than any other alternative.

These are persons who have spent many years living in this community, and for them it's home. They live there not only because they have no other choices, but because it's a community in which they feel at home. They know each other, they live with each other, they work with each other, they trust each other, and they support each other. It's important that we understand the richness and the quality of that community.

One of the gentlemen that I had the opportunity to visit with at the end of the forum had lived there for many years. When he was a small infant, he was kicked by a horse and so had a mental handicap through all of his life. He was quite proud that, though the doctors had said he would never walk, by four he had persevered in order that he could begin to walk. He went on to say that all of his life he had persevered and had overcome obstacle after obstacle. When it came to discussing what was needed in the downtown, in his community, for housing, he had plans and he had visions and hopes and promise, and he was just hoping that somebody was listening to his particular suggestions. They were good suggestions.

It was helpful to have the planning department from the city of Vancouver there, participating in that forum and presenting the very outline of the draft that we have here in this bill -- discussing it with the local residents, asking them how they would improve it, how they would put it forward, and the ideas they would like to have, and then taking it back to the council to do the legal drafting that the requirements would need here in Victoria.

We need to realize that we're talking about a valuable community, a community where people live with each other and are proud because they live in this community. They would like to overcome the difficulties, they would like to have decent and reliable housing, and they would like to have some assurance. But they're not going to move out, even if this doesn't happen; they're going to stay there and make it happen.

I'll go back to the early seventies, when I had the privilege to work in that community part-time with students who had come from the faculties of the university during the summer on an inner-city service project. They went down there, and they listened to the people in that community. They heard what they had to say and brought those suggestions forward. Out of that came the initial renovations of the sixties and the seventies in the downtown community.

Out of that, in part, came Gastown. Gastown was a model for taking some of the old buildings there and redoing them, putting a new front on them and making them business locations. Out of the money from the ground floor would come the opportunity to renovate other parts of the building. The very people who had been living on the ground floor in inadequate accommodation now were able to move upstairs into quite adequate accommodation and make themselves a home -- and be part of the tourist attraction, if you like.

These were the real pioneers of the community. Many of them at that time were pioneers who had worked in the bush. They had worked in the bush, had been injured and had drifted then to downtown. With them had drifted people from all over the world: university professors, college students, professionals who no longer were practising and who had no family. They had come down to share in this community together. If you have the opportunity to go into Carnegie library, which is the centre of that community, and talk with those people, you will be amazed at the intelligence, the wisdom and the knowledge of the world in which we live. If you go down there and try to play chess or checkers with some of those people, you'd better be prepared to be beaten, well and soundly, because they know what they're doing, and they know how to go about it. These are the kind of exciting and interesting people who live in the community that we're talking about.

What we're saying is that we have overlooked and neglected this community. We have overlooked and neglected the quality. . . . They aren't looking for expensive housing. They're looking for dry housing, they're looking for warm housing, they're looking for friendly housing. They're looking for some housing that's got some colour and some paint on it so that they can feel proud when they go home, and they don't have to be depressed either inside or outside the community.

[ Page 6127 ]

[5:00]

One of the dangers when they were first developing some other family accommodation downtown was, in developing accommodation, thinking only of the housing and not about the recreation. But there has to be a social life and a social dimension to this opportunity. So I hope, as we go forth with the Vancouver community charter, that once again we'll be able to establish cooperation between the non-profit societies in the community, which are the community themselves, the residents of the community, who are the people who will live in it and make it vital, and the municipal, provincial and federal administrations. I hope we will begin to ask ourselves: what are all of the assets that are needed for a vital community for single adults -- not family people, not people with disabilities, but single adults? That's a part of our society that we've overlooked.

For generations we have stressed the family nature of our society, and we should do that. But in that stress, we've overlooked the singles. I know because for many years I worked with the development of singles social groups. As you brought these together, the thing that they felt -- regardless of where they lived or the kind of accommodation they had, no matter the wealth of their finances or their job or professional standing -- was that because they were single adults, somehow they were suspect of being different.

I remember one leader within the community who helped alongside. . .and I worked along with her, was one of the sisters, a nun, who was the head of the Catholic Charities society. I remember her commenting one day as we worked together that she was a single person, except that because she was a nun and she headed her society, when she went to most social functions she was automatically welcomed. But if she took off her habit and went just on her own without a title, as a single person she got very little recognition, very little support.

So there's an awareness here that it's not only housing but our recognition of a group in our society that we need to support as a whole. So I would support the Vancouver Charter amendment and what they are putting forth here. But I would ask us to look at it in a broader perspective and ask: what can we do, in building the community in which these people live, to recognize that single-resident accommodation is a part of a community need in order that that community can take its rightful place in our society?

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It's interesting that they are asking that the substandard housing be made minimum standard. Usually in our society we have people asking that minimum standard be made modest -- or some other place. These people are not asking for the moon; they're just asking for justice in our community. So in looking at these, I think we need to realize that once we get into this discussion we will have opened an opportunity, an opportunity to ask about what the rest of the community is like and how we can support and how we can help.

It's as simple as. . . . I read recently about the cleanup of the subway system in New York. They had tried to make it a place, as they did in Boston a few years ago, that was friendly, welcome and safe. They brought a new commissioner in, and he said: "There's one way to do this -- as they did it in Boston, and we saw it done there: every time somebody damages this place, tomorrow morning it'll be repaired and it'll be painted. No matter what they do, how much they try to destroy it or what ruffians may try to write upon the walls, it will be always fresh the next morning." Their crews worked every night, and they discovered that the whole atmosphere changed. It became a place where you were safe. It became a place that people were proud of, and they stood around and talked with each other. That's the kind of thing that makes a difference to the community. You can't just do one building; you have to do a whole community.

So I commend the move in this direction, and I hope the minister is aware of the movement that he has become part of. It's been brought not by the city council -- although it has been transported here by the city council -- but it has been brought to the city council by the residents who live in this area, who are proud of this area and are clamouring at last to get the recognition and the hearing that they deserve.

So I commend the minister for listening, for being down amongst them and for responding in this positive way. I take it as a very initial beginning, and we hope to see far more from it as a result.

T. Nebbeling: I just want to say a few words on this amendment act. The reason is that when the minister spoke earlier about the ceremony that he attended yesterday for the groundbreaking of the Portland Hotel. . . . I should tell the minister that, first of all, I congratulate him for having become a partner with the city of Vancouver in that project. I watched it on TV. I didn't know about the Portland Hotel, but just watching the people who will indeed have the benefit from that project, the excitement on their faces and how they were truly talking with hope about their future. . . . It was a very touching thing to see on TV, and unfortunately, we do not see enough of that. But I hope that in the future, it will change that way as well.

Having said that, I'm obviously going to support this bill. I do have some problems, because on the one hand we are trying to make sure that low-income people, people that often finish up on the street, have an opportunity with low rents -- like the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant said -- and at least have shelter over their heads. . . . It's something that we have to have -- I understand that. But I also feel that there is a risk that through this act and the amendments to the Vancouver city act, we'll somehow set up a process where it will be very difficult to get out of that system of rat-infested housing for these people.

Of course I know that the act will make sure, or give a mechanism to guarantee, that this follow-up on housing is being maintained -- the actual guarantee that there is a basic level of decency in the maintenance and the health regulations in these buildings. But, as we all know, in the past we have seen many of these complexes in operation, and very rarely are they places that should actually be inhabited by human beings. But they are, because there is no alternative.

I do not really see in this act a direction where we go more towards buildings having a temporary occupancy permit, maybe for a two-year period, and then it gets re-evaluated at a point where the city either forces a close-down -- but at the same time makes sure that projects like the Portland Hotel do indeed happen -- or gets operators of these housing units to invest some money that will make the living standards much better than they are today.

[ Page 6128 ]

I say that because part of the coverage on TV yesterday of the Portland groundbreaking showed the housing where these people were living, and it's appalling. I've never seen anything like that in my life, and I'm sure it is not even the worst that can be seen in the east side.

So, having said that, I have one further concern, and that is that because of this act, there are actually other people that will become victims. These are the people that do live in decent-standard housing, in some hotels that certainly are one or two grades above what we saw and what we have been talking about this morning, and who often get rent considerably higher than the $325 per month that was quoted earlier on.

What is happening is that in these hotels, which now have single-room occupancy, people are living there who have jobs, but really cannot afford $800 or $900 a month. But with these rents of $500 to $600 -- well, $550 maximum -- they just have a decent room in a clean environment, often with their own bathroom. What's happening because of this act is that the owners of these hotels -- who truly do operate clean operations -- are now having to give notices to these tenants. If they allow these tenants to stay and this act comes in, they're stuck with these tenants. The problem is that many hotel owners are saying: "Hey, listen. Today it is single-room occupancy, but in the future I may change it again back to a hotel if there is a need for it." These were hotels that are now occupied because there was a need for the rooms, and there were empty rooms. This category is now giving notice to all the tenants, and there are hundreds of single occupants that have been given notice. They'll be walking the streets of Vancouver, because they cannot stay in the hotel where they now are because of this particular act. I hope that the minister, when he speaks with the council of the city of Vancouver, will at least try to see if they are willing to reconsider the decision to allow these hotels in higher grades to fall under the category that is described in this act.

That's really all I wanted to say. I support the bill. I see there's a tremendous need for the homeless and the lost souls that wander the streets of Vancouver. But at the same time, I do not want a case where, because we try to protect one group of people, this becomes a situation where another group of people will be kicked onto the street because of the circumstances that apply to the places they occupy today, which certainly do not fall in the same category.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose comments will close debate on second reading.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the members for their comments. This piece of legislation, as has been pointed out, is an enabling piece of legislation. I'd like to address in my closing remarks, a number of comments that have been made about some of the things the bill does do and some of the things the bill doesn't do. I'll try to work my way backwards, and I'll respond to the concerns that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised about the hotels.

This piece of legislation will allow the city of Vancouver a great deal of latitude. It's been developed in the sense that the options as to how the piece of legislation should come forward are a question of: should the province be involved in the detailed minutiae of the legislation by giving limited powers to the municipality, or should we go with the approach that I think we've been trying to take in other areas of legislation, which is to give a broad authority to a municipality -- or, in this case, the city of Vancouver -- to deal with a particular issue which they have identified as being a priority for them and one where they see legislative change being required in order to meet the needs that they see need to be met?

[5:15]

So I think that the city has given a commitment that it wants to have input from a broad representation of society before it goes ahead with the bylaw itself. I expect that people will be coming forward with concerns or where they think things need to be done. That will take place. I expect, hopefully, that that should address the problem the hon. member has raised.

In terms of some of the other concerns that have been raised, particularly around the issues of covenants and retroactivity, we will get into these in deeper discussion on a more technical nature when we're in committee. But the bill does allow for these things to take place for a couple of reasons. One, on the issue of covenants, nothing in this bill precludes the city of Vancouver from enacting a covenant when either designating or looking at a particular building or a particular neighbourhood. Covenants can still be used, and I fully expect that covenants will continue to be used now and in future, even with this piece of legislation.

On the issue of retroactivity, this is an interesting point, and there are some arguments on both sides of this particular issue. The issue of retroactivity is important because it gives the city of Vancouver a tool. It's not saying that you must; it's saying that you have the ability to make the legislation or your bylaw retroactive to the date of the introduction of the piece of legislation.

It's important, I think, for a couple of points. One is in case there's a rush to try and escape the bylaw. I don't think we've seen a great deal of that. There have been some examples of hotel owners wanting to beat the legislation, but by and large, there haven't been many. This sends a signal and gives the city of Vancouver a tool with which they have the ability to say: "Hang on a second." You know, if there's a rush to massive demolitions or a rush to conversions, they have the ability to deal with that. I think that's very important, but it's enabling, not requiring.

The issues around some of the other concerns that have been raised are probably best dealt with at committee stage, where we can get into them on a more technical basis, particularly the relationship of the amount of stock, what type of money could be allocated where and when and how the different things kick in.

Let me say this. I am particularly pleased by the fact that the city of Vancouver has agreed to hold a full and open process into developing the framework for the bylaw before they introduce it. It's a piece of legislation, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara has pointed out, that responds to the needs and aspirations of a particular community, and it has been very much driven by the needs, aspirations and desires of that community.

They recognize that change is coming to their neighbourhood and that steps need to be taken to help them preserve the integrity of their community. No matter how people feel 

[ Page 6129 ]

about the nature of the accommodation, whether it's what they would prefer to live in or if they think it's desirable, the fact is that it's there. It is stock that's critical for housing people in British Columbia, particularly in the downtown east side and in some of the other neighbourhoods, and it's going to be around for a long time to come.

We need to ensure that communities -- in this case, the city of Vancouver -- have the tools and the ability to work with people in the downtown east side, south Granville Street and other areas. We need to ensure that their interests are protected and that they get due consideration first for a change instead of, as has often been the case, their interests being at the end of the line.

One final point I'd like to touch on before I close is a point that was raised. This particular bill applies to the city of Vancouver as an amendment to the charter. Yes, that's correct. I gave serious consideration to expanding it provincewide. This came forward initially as a request from the city of Vancouver. I think most people are aware that the greatest problem is in certain areas of Vancouver such as the downtown east side, so it's critical that we move as expeditiously as we can. Having said that, I'm aware that this issue is in other communities around the province, and I fully expect that if the UBCM comes forward with a request, then we would act on it at that time.

Given the approach that we're trying to take and given the approach I'm trying to establish in terms of working with other municipalities through the joint council process, this appears to me to be a case where trying to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the city of Vancouver as they relate to the charter governing it at the same time as trying to bring this issue to other municipalities -- where it doesn't have quite the prominence as it does in the city of Vancouver -- and trying to get the two to come forward in agreement on a piece of legislation that would serve both the city of Vancouver and the rest of the province at the same time just isn't practical.

That's why we've taken the approach we have on this particular piece of legislation. But certainly it doesn't rule out this type of legislation being available for use by the municipalities at a future date.

Having said that, hon. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to introduce this bill for debate, and I look forward to committee stage and the support of all members of the House. With that, I move second reading of Bill 52.

Motion approved.

Bill 52, Vancouver Charter 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. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 47.

FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

When the changes were introduced, government committed to a sustainable forest management system, and it committed to a system which would be flexible and responsive to change. Forest Renewal must be flexible in finding the best way of delivering forest investment programs. The code must be a living code, responsive to changing scientific knowledge and open to new ways of managing and protecting forest resources.

The bill before you today follows through on that commitment. Over the past year, the government has initiated review and consultation on how to improve the way that provincial forests are managed. We initiated the operational planning review, a multi-stakeholder process focused on the streamlining of the Forest Practices Code planning requirements. We've talked to those working in our forests about how FRBC programs are delivered. We talked to remanufacturers and other small business forest enterprises about their problems in accessing timber. We've talked to truck loggers, environmental groups and industry associations about problems and concerns with code enforcement and tenure administration. Finally, as part of the stakeholder discussions during the last months, we've talked to community leaders, industry, environmental groups and others about how to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and expense.

The amendments in Bill 47 to the Forest Act, the Range Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act respond to many of these concerns and improve the forest management framework. There are essentially five major themes in the legislation. First, Bill 47 introduces amendments to reduce unnecessary administrative burden in the Forest Practices Code. The bill reduces the number of operational plans that must be prepared for timber harvesting and related activities from six to three.

It amends other provisions to reduce unnecessary duplication of information and make operational plans more results-oriented. It clarifies higher-level planning provisions and the manner in which higher-level plans have an impact on existing operational plans. It enables the code requirements for small-scale salvage operators and woodlot licence holders to be tailored to the scale of these operations without reducing standards. It makes changes to the preamble in section 41, which deals with approvals of operational plans, to increase recognition of economic factors in code decision-making.

Secondly, it introduces changes to improve and clarify other administrative provisions. It introduces amendments to improve Forest Act revenue provisions, changes to timber-marking, scaling and stumpage collection requirements, many of which were recommended by the auditor general and will prevent revenue leakages.

The bill introduces changes to appeal provisions in ministry legislation. Amendments will harmonize and rationalize review and appeal provisions under the Forest Act and the Range Act with those under the code and will consolidate appeals under a single body, the Forest Appeals Commission. The bill introduces housekeeping amendments to correct minor oversights and operational problems and to provide necessary powers to address administrative problems in future years.

Thirdly, the bill introduces changes to allow implementation of a new, more efficient FRBC delivery model. At present, delivery of FRBC programs relies heavily on government ministries to manage and deliver land-based programs. A number of minor amendments in this bill will allow FRBC to contract directly with major forest sector firms and other partners, without reducing stewardship or forest practice 

[ Page 6130 ]

standards. These amendments are part of an initiative to improve the way FRBC programs are delivered and will help reduce government overheads, streamlining program approvals.

Fourthly, the bill introduces changes which will clarify and improve code enforcement powers. Over the past year, industry and other stakeholders have expressed concerns that the existing provisions are unduly harsh on operators who took all reasonable precautions and contravened the code in spite of their best efforts. Fears that such contraventions could have an impact on their record have induced some licensees to request review of many administrative decisions. This has needlessly increased apprehension about the code and also the administrative workloads. At the same time, government has encountered difficulty in tracking contraventions because of ambiguities in legislation. The amendments introduced here today address these concerns, thereby ensuring tough but fair enforcement.

Fifthly, the bill introduces amendments to streamline tenure administration. Amendments to the Forest Act tenure administration provisions will facilitate small-scale salvage operations and oil and gas exploration work, and will enable small business forest enterprises to receive the full volume of timber allocated to the program.

The changes to forest policy which the government has introduced in recent years have been a major step forward towards correcting many of the problems in our forests. The amendments that are proposed in Bill 47 offer further improvement. I believe that the changes contained in this legislation are well balanced and will continue the government's commitment to improve forest management and maintain the principle of sustainable use on which the Forest Practices Code is based.

I move that Bill 47 be read a second time.

T. Nebbeling: The minister stated that in 1994 this bill was introduced, and with the introduction of the Forest Practices Code there was a new future heralded for the forest industry. There was a new future for the forest-dependent communities. The picture was given of how the future of the forest-dependent communities would be bright and full of prosperity. Of course, at the time the bill was introduced, it was proclaimed that it would do everything that any forest worker and his family would like to see happen in their life as far as quality of life is concerned.

We are three years further down the road, and this Forest Practices Code has done nothing but bad things for British Columbia. The Forest Practices Code has done nothing for forest-dependent communities. Most important, the Forest Practices Code has been bad for the people whose livelihood is dependent on the forest industry.

So when I say I welcome Bill 47, the amendment act on the Forest Practices Code, it is because I, like so many British Columbians who have been depending on the forest industry, have been calling, asking, pleading for change. So this bill is definitely welcome. Although I certainly do not see this bill as being the salvation and saviour of everything that has gone wrong in the last three years, I believe that after the debate and some considerable discussions on the 158 sections that we will be discussing in the next couple of days, indeed we will see some changes that will truly help make things better in the forest industry.

But at the same time, I'd also like the minister to know that we, as the B.C. Liberal Party, with the knowledge of a tremendous amount of input from a tremendous number of people, see this as a first step, and that we definitely expect a lot more to happen in the future when it comes to making the Forest Practices Code indeed a code that can be of benefit for the province and not, as it has turned out to be, a job-killer for people living in forest-dependent communities.

[5:30]

In my travels over the last 14 months since I was elected to the Legislature, I have visited maybe 40 communities. I have not been in any community amongst these 40 where I did not get to talk to people who just couldn't believe how left out they felt. They felt let down by these various policies and initiatives that the provincial government has undertaken in the last number of years, every time in the name of the men and women of this province, for the well-being of the men and women of this province and for the well-being of the forest and the environment.

People just haven't been able to understand why something that could have been so good turned out so bad. People have not been able to understand that the Forest Practices Code -- which was introduced as the best thing to ever happen in this province, which the minister has been proclaiming his pride in from the day that I had the opportunity to debate him -- could have turned things so bad for so many people who worked in the forest industry.

Every time I go to a community I get another shocking experience to absorb. Today I'm not going to talk about the enormous number of dramas and tragedies that I had to face visiting these communities. These people had lost everything, including hope for a future -- including families, often. It included kids who had left home because mom and dad were fighting all the time because dad didn't have work. The mortgage couldn't be paid, there was no food on the table, and there was no money for education. That type of environment has been created in community after community after community, in home after home after home, because of this Forest Practices Code.

I welcome Bill 47 and the amendments as the first step. But I don't think we can go into the debate without having said what I just said. I want to make sure that the minister understands that every time I speak and every time I argue or debate a section in the bill, there is a reason for it. The reason is that I have dealt with the people, spoken to the people, met with the people and felt for the people who have had to live with the consequences and the act. If there are changes needed, I'm going to stand up and hope to achieve some of these changes, to see them happen.

When the minister speaks about the changes, of which he is very proud, I must say one thing. This bill could have been a lot better right from the start, if only the minister had considered a public process, a process of input from all parties that 

[ Page 6131 ]

have been affected by the bill. I've stated many times in this House that we have to make sure that the voices of all people affected by the Forest Practices Code are not only heard but enticed to speak.

Unfortunately, the only voices that have been heard have been the CEOs of the companies that have participated in the jobs and timber accord. I feel that that has definitely prohibited us from a good opportunity. If indeed we were serious about making changes that would make the Forest Practices Code more effective, more result-oriented, if we had listened to many more voices, not just the CEOs of the major companies but the smaller companies, the people who work in the forest, the people who are no longer working in the forest. . . . Had we done that, we may have had a much more comprehensive code, a code that most likely would have been quicker at achieving the goal that it was supposed to when it was introduced in 1994, and that is to bring prosperity to the companies.

I think what we're going to see is disappointment when the new amendments are incorporated in how we deal with the future of our forests. I think the disappointment could very well be with the CEOs of these companies, who were the people that consulted the government. The reason is that when I talk to the industry, they all expect large dollars in savings because of the changes. Some are modest and say: "Well, it should give us an $8-per-cubic-metre break" -- some think it is a little bit more. But then you talk to the consultants, you talk to the smaller companies and you talk to the administrators, and suddenly you find out that the expectation is that the code changes may only bring a savings of $1.25 to $1.50 per cubic metre.

If that is the case, then we have missed the very first opportunity of creating a new investment environment in this province -- what we were trying to do as part of the reconstruction of the code. That $1.25 will not be enough to bring investors back to this province who will again invest capital in operations so that we, through the investment, can create the new jobs that we ultimately are looking for. I hope not too many people are going to be disappointed when they see that at the end of the day, the savings that these amendments are bringing to the Forest Practices Code are not of a nature that they will have an impact on how we can bring timber to the mills in a manner that is financially affordable.

There are some other points, and then I think I'll wrap up for now -- I think we're going to spend enough time during committee. There is no mention of the road structure report that was supposed to be coming forward, so that we would know what indeed the need was for the roads. There is no mention of green-up issues, no mention of average block sizes. These are the kinds of questions that I had hoped to see being dealt with in this bill so that we could take at least some of the animosity away from what's happening in the forest.

There is no mention of visual-quality objectives and its impact on the AAC, and that to me is a very serious shortcoming of this amendment act. One of the reasons is that in certain parts of the province, in particular the Kootenay and Boundary areas, there are incredible visual-quality standards set that prohibit the industry from having a decent AAC and actually reduce the AAC again. Consequently, more jobs are lost.

There is a lot missing from the bill; we're going to talk about it. I also want to say in my conclusion that there's one thing that I do appreciate, and that is that the glaring omission from the document in 1994 -- not having in the preamble any mention of maintaining harvest levels in each region that would secure jobs and economic well-being for communities -- has been changed to include the district manager's requirement to look at the economic and social impact, as well, of a cutblock.

With that, I will stop now, say that we will support the bill in second reading, and look forward to a comprehensive debate during committee.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 47, the Forests Statutes Amendments Act. It's a little difficult to speak to a bill that's 64 pages long and continually says: "Section 14 is repealed; section 15 is repealed; section 18 is amended; section 20 is repealed; section 24 is repealed; section 18 is. . . ." You know, it goes on and on and on.

It's absolutely amazing that in 1997 this government is starting to see the light. They've brought the forest industry almost to its knees -- the lifeblood of this province that this government has tinkered with, and not just in a little way. It almost brought it to its knees before it finally relented and said that it had to go back and revisit a bill that was introduced in this House in 1994 -- which I remember quite well.

It's interesting today to listen to the minister's comments. It's interesting to read newspaper articles about quotes from the minister about the Forest Practices Code. You know, we debated that bill long and heavy in 1994, and I remember that everybody in opposition at that time stated constantly: "This bill is far too intrusive. It's far too regulatory. It's got far too much red tape in it, and you're trying to micromanage this industry with a one-stamp-fits-all."

I remember quite well standing in this House arguing about those issues and listening to the folks across the way, the NDP, always saying that they knew better -- saying to me: "Go away. You were one of those Socreds. Get away. You're one of the ones who overcut the forest. You're one of the ones who have raped and pillaged the forest. What are you talking about? You know nothing. Get out of here! We know best." That's what we heard in 1994 -- not a single change to the Forest Practices Code. All we heard was: "We know better. You folks don't know anything at all."

Well, how the world turns. I guess the old saying is that the first three years in government are easy. The second time around, all of a sudden, you have to start paying the piper for what you did the first time. And that's exactly what's happening to this government today, with having to backtrack and amend much of the legislation that went through at that time.

I can recall talking during the debates on the Forest Practices Code about the size of the code -- how big it was, how many regulations were going to go along with it. And the piles are getting higher. I think they're about three feet deep in my office now -- policy and regulations and Forest Practices Code. It's phenomenal. We've cut down a huge amount of trees just to print up a huge amount of policy that nobody -- I shouldn't say nobody, but not a lot of people -- can make head nor tail of because you can't keep up to it because of the constant change.

Every year we come into this House, and there's an amendment to the Forest Act: "Oops. We didn't do it right that time. We've got to change it." We've brought the forest industry almost to its knees; now we're going to change it. You know, if you look at Sweden, even the socialists in Sweden knew better. They've got a book that's about that thick -- 50 pages or something like that. They harvest as much as we do in British Columbia, and yet they have a code that's results-oriented. That's what they have.

[ Page 6132 ]

[5:45]

And you know, when you're finished all of it -- when you get through all the work with all the bureaucrats. . . . Nothing wrong with them; they're doing a fine job. It's the policy that's brought forward by this government that's very difficult to deal with. People go out, they cut the tree down, they bring it in, they saw it up, they sell it and they create jobs. The whole process happens almost identically to what happened before. But I tell you, it's the red tape that this government makes industry go through first, before they can go out and cut the tree down.

I hate to say that I told you so, but I am going to tell the minister -- although he wasn't the minister at the time. . . . I remember saying it to the minister of the day. I'm going to read it right out of Reform B.C.'s policy manual -- right out of their policy manual, which we read into the record before. B.C. Reform "would vastly simplify the code's regulatory burden, to focus on objectives and outcomes rather than process. Forest companies should know clearly what is expected of them, with tough penalties for non-compliance and incentives for exceeding minimum standards." It's right out of B.C. Reform's policy book. You couldn't get a socialist on that side of the House to listen to it, because "we know better." That was the constant song I heard from those folks over there: "We know better."

Well, it's interesting. That was in 1994-95. Today, what do we hear from the current Minister of Forests? In a June 9 press release. . . . I'm going to read verbatim from the press release. The Minister of Forests said: ". . .the goals of the changes are to: (1) make the code more efficient by reducing paperwork while preserving standards; (2) make the code more effective by increasing staff time in the field rather than behind the desk; and (3) amend the code to ensure government tracks industry performance."

Well, I think the Minister of Forests got one of B.C. Reform's policy manuals and had a good read of it. Maybe he went back and looked in Hansard a bit before he released that press release. I'm not sure, but it almost sounds the same. In fact, when I listened to the minister speak earlier about Bill 47, he talked about a results-oriented procedure -- exactly what we've been talking about since 1994. This is 1997. Three years later, and all of a sudden, it's a new revelation.

Well, it's no new revelation. It's a government that's finally starting to wake up to the realization that they brought the number one industry in British Columbia almost to its knees. All we have to do is go around the province and have a quick look, see the jobs that are lost, go to the communities, go to Golden, Revelstoke and into the northwest to find how many jobs are gone -- good, high-paying jobs. . . .

Here we have a government that knew better, that always knew better. But they didn't have to live up to what they put into place until now, and that's why we're starting to see some changes. Unfortunately, in the meantime, they've ruined a lot of lives, ruined a lot of investment not just in the forest industry but in many other industries that have to live with the Forest Practices Code.

It's with bated breath that I say: "Well, it's time that you folks finally woke up." You know, it only took a study from industry, it took a study from government. . . . In fact, the Forest Alliance of British Columbia did a study, and it took a year and a half for the NDP to respond to it. That's Jack Munro; that's one of their own, an avid supporter of the NDP but not an avid supporter of everything that went on with the Forest Practices Code, I can tell you -- right from day one was not an avid supporter of the total Forest Practices Code. The idea, the philosophy, yes, but not the piles and piles and piles of regulations and red tape. That's where that gentleman drew the line -- enough is enough. I think each one of us knows that enough is enough.

It's evident in the newspapers, in quotes from the now Minister of Forests:

"[The minister] acknowledged the code, which will be two years old June 15, has been a costly experiment in policy for both forest companies and the government. A Price Waterhouse study prepared for the industry last December said the code was costing forest companies $1 billion a year. A subsequent government-commissioned study placed the cost at $750 million. 'We didn't get it right in all cases. But as we became aware of the effect, we have brought changes in,' [the minister stated]."

I have a few more remarks I'm going to make. But noting the time, I move that we adjourn the debate.

R. Neufeld moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

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

L. Reid: Just prior to the break, we were comparing the districts of Richmond and Prince George. Would the minister 

[ Page 6133 ]

kindly explain the difference per student between Prince George and Richmond from the 1996-97 budget year to the 1997-98 budget year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As we've discussed at some length earlier in these estimates, there are a variety of factors that go into calculation of a per-student grant. It is a very complex form of formula. There are several measures on which funding is very close between Prince George and Richmond and others where they're fairly widely apart.

I'll give you a couple here. There's a clear difference in operations and maintenance budgets. Richmond gets $560 per student for operations and maintenance; Prince George gets $691. On special education it actually goes the other way: Richmond gets $691 per student; Prince George gets $403. As one might expect, in transportation Richmond gets significantly less, $36 per student; Prince George gets $248. On the other hand, Richmond is a growing district and Prince George is not. Richmond gets $12 additional per student for planning for growth; Prince George gets $1. For teacher salaries, the average teacher salary in Richmond is slightly lower than in Prince George. Therefore they got $114 for teacher salary adjustments; Prince George, $139. Small schools -- again a factor that gets weighted in favour of Prince George: $10 per student for a small school factor in Richmond; Prince George, $42. Finally, there's a geographic adjustment of $30 for Prince George; zero dollars for Richmond. I'm trying to see if there are any others that are really significant differences. I think those are the major ones that account for differences in funding between Prince George and Richmond.

L. Reid: The minister makes reference to the cost per student in a district. Richmond is anticipating an increase of 242 more students in fiscal '97-98, and yet the district's funding has been increased by only $250,000. That is certainly far less than what the minister knows is the actual cost of educating a child. Could he perhaps justify how the allotment will indeed fund an additional 242 students in Richmond?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Richmond's final budget for '96-97 was roughly $134.3 million. For enrolment growth, they were funded for an increase of 243 FTEs, which is about $1.2 million at full costing. They have an additional increase in square metres of school that they're actually occupying, for another adjustment of $1,074,000; an increase in special education enrolment -- about $200,000 increase in that figure; increased career program enrolment -- 103 FTEs in career programming, which was an increase of $103,000; and increased administration for new schools of $84,000.

There are also some minus figures: decreased transportation costs, $206,000; decreased facility planning one-time costs, $326,000; reduced ESL enrolment -- a bit of a surprise, but an anticipated reduction of 186 FTEs in ESL enrolment, which results in a decrease of $177,000; changes to small secondary funding, which affected all school districts -- a reduction of $627,000; and, of course, the efficiency adjustment -- the 0.77 percent which all districts, amalgamated and unamalgamated, are asked to assume as part of the $27 million efficiencies. Add all that up, and you've got a preliminary budget of $134.096 million.

L. Reid: The minister's remarks were specifically with reference to the 242 more students that I cited. He came back and cited 243, at an actual cost of $1.2 million for their education. What has been allowed for in the budget allotment is $250,000 -- roughly one-quarter of the cost of educating those students in '97-98 fiscal in Richmond.

The minister needs to directly respond to that particular question. There is basically another shortage demonstrated here, of over $750,000. Does the minister have an answer -- not debating 242 versus 243 -- in terms of the number of students? If the actual cost is $1.2 million, Richmond's allotment to educate those students is $250,000.

[2:45]

All school districts across the province were asked to find savings this year. The figure that they were asked to find was $27 million. This is the figure that came out of the public sector in 1996 -- our public education restructuring report -- when school district amalgamation was done. At that time government decided not to amalgamate down to 37, which was the original target, but only to 59. We were told very clearly by many districts, who had asked not to be amalgamated, that they could find those efficiencies and those savings either by work within their own districts or by sharing services with adjacent districts. Therefore in this year, '97-98, in preparation for the '97-98 school year -- nearly 18 months after amalgamation was announced -- we are indeed requiring school districts to come up with the savings that they said were there in areas that did not directly impact classroom education. There is a long list of these areas included in the restructuring report that was put together by representatives of the School Trustees Association and the ministry. Now, I'm sure that the member knows that out of this approximately $3.5 billion budget for public school education, there is approximately $800 million spent on areas not directly in the classroom, and that is the area where the school trustees and representatives of the ministry jointly said there were some savings to be found. Richmond, like others, is being asked to find those savings.

L. Reid: In response to the question I posed to the minister, perhaps he can do the math and tell us: in terms of $250,000, what is the per-student cost when you divide that by 242 students?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Richmond received $5,607 for every student.

L. Reid: If this Minister of Education would actually do the math and take $250,000 divided by 242 students and tell me if the projected enrolment dollars actually equate to the $5,000 he mentioned, I'd be delighted -- but I don't think that's the case.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try another way of looking at it, since I don't think the member either doesn't understand or doesn't wish to take the point here. The member and the opposition, in their criticism of the increase in funding that we provided to schools this year, are right on one point: if you simply divide the overall budget by the number of students in the system, it is a decreased funding per student of $43 on average. This is no secret, the ministry has been quite open about this. That decrease results entirely from the requirement that the school districts find efficiencies in administration, transportation and other services that aren't directly involved in the classroom. That is the requirement we put on top of all school districts this year.

[ Page 6134 ]

Putting it another way -- and maybe this is a way to explain it more fully -- we do anticipate an increase in enrolment in our public schools next year. We've debated it, and it's approximately 10,700 more students in school districts across British Columbia. Richmond has a portion of that: 230-some, 240.

If we were to fully fund each of those additional students at the level that you're asking for -- no reduction -- it would cost approximately $61 million. We've said to the school districts: "Here's the deal. In order to get that $61 million, we're going to put $34 million on the table." That's what this budget has done, and that's what we're giving to the school districts.

We've said to them: "Your part is to come up with the $27 million for that education from efficiencies outside the classroom. You said it was possible to do this in 1996 during the restructuring report, you said it could be done without amalgamation; in fact, you urged us not to amalgamate as much as we'd initially planned, because those savings could be found in other ways." This year we're saying to school districts: "We think it is possible -- $27 million out of $800 million around the province; we think this is doable."

L. Reid: I don't think the minister's examples make sense for Richmond, one of the largest school districts in the province, with 25,000-plus students. To amalgamate with whom? Let's take this through to where it makes some kind of logical sense. What the minister is saying is: "Yes, indeed, there's a reduction of $43 per student for the existing students." The point I'm making at this juncture is that new students will be further penalized.

You are looking at funding -- by your words -- 243 new students in the Richmond school district next year with $250,000. You already indicated in your remarks that the actual cost of doing just that job is $1.2 million.

The minister will shake his head. That is exactly what the minister said, and I would ask the minister to check in the Hansard tomorrow. Indeed, those were the comments that came from this minister.

So if we talk about equality and opportunity and universality in education, then this minister is way off the mark in terms of that discussion. Existing students in Richmond will face a reduction of $43; new students will be further penalized -- yes or no?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The figure of $5,607 that I've given the member for funding students in Richmond applies to all students, new and old.

L. Reid: The minister indicated that districts that were not able to amalgamate, based on size and other areas, were interested and able to find savings of $27 million. I think that some significant factors were not addressed by this minister, and certainly they look at employment salary increments, utility increases, CPP and WCB. There are a number of issues in contracts that are just givens. There is no ability for any district to massage that into a lesser amount of money, and this minister is fully aware of contractual obligations that must be honoured.

So when the minister continues to make the point that indeed these things somehow do not impact directly on children in the classroom -- yes they do, because those are the teachers that directly teach those children in those classrooms. Those are the classroom assistants, those are the speech and language pathologists, those are the school-based counsellors, those are the lab assistants.

I don't agree that the minister can position himself as saying that those impacts do not impact children directly. I believe he knows that they do. As a past educator, I believe he fully understands the impact this will have. The rhetoric, the message -- no, it's not falling on fertile ground, Mr. Minister. Indeed, you know that this will have an impact, and you stand up and give the same rhetorical response that is not significant for the Richmond District Parents Association and not significant for the school district. And again, the courtesy was not extended to meet with them. I have some serious concerns around that, because you know that this is an honest, forthright, factual discussion. I believe you do know that.

In terms of the next question the minister has been asked to respond to, the minister is quoted as saying that cuts should be focused on non-classroom activities, including administration, operations and maintenance, transportation, etc.

My colleagues in Richmond, the Richmond District Parents Association, want to know that the minister is basing those remarks on any kind of working knowledge of being in a school. Certainly this minister has some college background, but what information does this minister use to appropriately fund the K-to-12 system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's deal with just a couple of things. First, I have met with the Richmond school board this year, since I was appointed to this portfolio. That's not something I've been able to do with all 59 school districts. I hope to be able to meet with them all within the coming year. In addition, I've had my senior officials meet with Richmond school board for two hours. We are trying to listen very carefully to what the school board is saying. They are clearly one of our largest boards, and their issues are important to us.

Let me say again, very generally, that we believe we have done an equitable job of distributing the funds that we have available to us. As I can see, the member doesn't wish to acknowledge that there are any efficiencies to be made in the delivery of education services, contrary to the report of the public education restructuring consultation that was done last year, which clearly said there were opportunities here and that it could be done partly by amalgamation and partly by other means within one district and with shared services.

I would remind the member that it was her own leader who suggested that we should amalgamate school districts down to the level of. . . . I think that at one time 20 was the proposed number, with a savings significantly in excess of the amount that we're requiring school districts to make in the coming year.

The member talks about cost pressures in districts. We've addressed this at some length during these estimates. I'll recap very briefly for the member. Anything that has to do with teachers and the provincial contract that is negotiated with teachers has been fully covered by this budget. I quoted for the member the difference in per-teacher funding, which reflects the difference in experience factors around the province. We don't fund all districts the same on teacher salaries; we try to take account of who's got higher increments and lower increments and where people are on the scales. That is part of how we fund districts.

The member talks about the impact of WCB, employment insurance and other factors. We've discussed those. Both of those factors together, I think, made up 0.3 of 1 percent -- very minor. The biggest cost factor this time for all school districts is teacher salaries, as we discussed in previous estimates. It amounts to close to 60 percent of school budgets. Those are entirely covered here.

[ Page 6135 ]

We are asking districts to make reductions in non-classroom areas, in total acceptance of and agreement with the restructuring report, which said we should and could require this and require those funds to be focused into the classroom. As I said, the great majority of school districts have gone on and gotten on with this job quietly and effectively. Some have not.

L. Reid: To continue with this line of questioning, in a number of his previous statements this minister made reference to the PERC report as a source and a justification for current levels of provincial funding for K-to-12. As an example, as a reflection of recommendation B.1 in the PERC report, you stated in your letter to the British Columbia Trustees Association, dated April 25, 1997: "I've asked boards to focus their expenditure reductions in non-classroom activities, including administration, operations and maintenance, transportation, etc."

What the PERC report actually called for -- and that's the difference -- is a reduction of 1 percent of the administrative, operations and maintenance and transportation portions of each -- and this is when it was 75 school districts -- funding $800 million times 1 percent, for a total of $8 million in `96-97, and a further reduction of 1 percent in each of the following three years to reflect savings achieved through restructuring over the next four years.

Had this recommendation been implemented as actually called for, a reduction of 1 percent of the administrative, operations and maintenance and transportation portions of Richmond's funding would have amounted to a total of $281,000. Your ministry's reductions, however, went far beyond the scope of the PERC recommendations, to the degree that the reductions to Richmond's funding amounted to a total of over a million dollars -- $750,000 more than the recommendation in the PERC report. Why?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, at least we're making some progress here, and I think the member is acknowledging that there are indeed efficiencies to be made in areas that won't affect the classroom. Now we're debating to what level those should be made and who makes the recommendations and adopts them.

How the target of $27 million -- and it is a target from the PERC report, from page 4. . . . The executive summary outlines very clearly a table for what reductions in funding should be made. It recommended a funding reduction for '96-97, last fiscal year, of $13 million. Given that I only received the report in March of that year, I felt that was too tight a time line to ask them to achieve that, and I waived that. It recommended in '97-98 a reduction of $27 million; '98-99, $35 million; and 1999, $43 million. Those are the recommendations; I invite the member to read them.

As far as where the cuts actually came from -- what areas of administration -- the ministry and budget consultations in the fall of 1996 talked to superintendents, school trustees, secretary-treasurers and others about how best to structure it. The requirement in the letter that you quote to me reflects the recommendations of the provincial education committee that my ministry met with. That's why it was structured in the way it was.

[3:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I did.

L. Reid: Specifically, Richmond school district. . . . What the PERC report recommendation actually called for was: ". . .a reduction of 1 percent of the administrative, operations and maintenance, and transportation portions of each of the 75 school districts' funding ($800 million times 1 percent equals $8 million) in 1996-97 and a further reduction of 1 percent in each of the following three years to reflect savings achieved through restructuring over the next four years." Had this recommendation been implemented as actually called for, a reduction of 1 percent of the administrative, operations and maintenance and transportation portions of Richmond's funding would have amounted to a total of $281,000 for '97-98. Your ministry's reductions, however, went far beyond the scope of the PERC recommendations, to the degree that the reductions for Richmond's funding amounted to over $1 million -- $750,000 more than recommended in the PERC report.

The question, specifically, to you was: why?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is indeed the question I thought I had answered. The report very specifically says that there are three areas that these should come from: effective amalgamations, across-the-board funding reduction and a restructuring savings.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was the recommendation of the provincial education committee -- and it's the recommendation in the restructuring report -- that we should require these efficiencies not just of amalgamated districts but of others as well. In addition, there's a long list of services in the restructuring report in which the report clearly recommends that school districts should look at sharing with neighbouring districts. The division into three bits that was recommended by this restructuring committee was after consultation with school districts themselves, who said, "No, you should do it a slightly different way" -- and we did.

Well, I'm sorry if Richmond doesn't agree with the way it was done, but we did consult with their provincial association. I think Richmond is a member of the BCSTA, is it not? Their voice was heard; their advice was listened to. I regret that they are not happy with the result of it in their own budget.

L. Reid: Allow the record to show that the minister has not yet answered the question. I have the PERC report. I can read the page that you continue to reference. That is not specific to Richmond, and the question I posed to this minister was: specifically, why Richmond -- why the difference in what the PERC report recommendations suggested and why the recommendation allowed for a $750,000 difference? The question was, specifically: why?

The Chair: The member continues.

L. Reid: What alarms me is the selective quoting of that report when it's useful. What alarms me is the fact that the minister can't explain why some of those recommendations were overlooked and others were put in place, when indeed the questions need to be answered. So again, allow the record to show that the minister does owe an explanation re that last question.

Certainly the rest of the concerns from my superintendent go on to talk about this minister's use of a very selective 

[ Page 6136 ]

recommendation. Based on the minister's response this afternoon, I would have to agree that indeed it is problematic that the minister is not prepared to answer questions during the Education estimates. This is the only opportunity opposition members have to raise those issues.

I wish to return to the Richmond District Parents Association -- their correspondence of April 22 -- because they too await a meeting. We talk very clearly. . . . These issues are pertinent, certainly, to Richmond, but also to a number of different areas around the province.

The minister made some comment about ESL earlier in his remarks -- that indeed we're experiencing fewer students next year. The bottom line is that over half of the Richmond student population today is ESL. That's a significant issue. The number alone doesn't convey the strain that's put on teachers -- no question about that. The minister's inability to look at what is a unique situation astounds me yet again. I think the fact that the district has handled ESL for a decade with very little recognition by this ministry is again problematic.

I think there are some issues that we need to canvass. Certainly the issues around school-based counselling, speech and language pathology, and special education are issues I can speak to from personal experience, having taught a special ed population in the Richmond school district for close to a decade. Where I began this debate this morning in terms of. . . . The minister believing, or suggesting he believes, that these impacts will not directly impact on children is, frankly, dead-wrong. They will; there's no doubt about that. When a child is not able to access the service they need to be successful in a learning environment, we've accomplished nothing. We've simply stripped away the resources that allow the children to achieve success.

I know that the minister has to be aware that that's going to be the case. Those children need support to be in the system. To disallow that support -- to selectively quote from a report that removes those services from children -- is not what this government said they stood for. I have some difficulties around that, and it concerns me -- again, the selectivity of quoting from particular recommendations. But when there's variances in the recommendations, no explanation is given. That's a serious concern.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The minister, I believe, needs to understand some issues around learning resource teachers. When you talk about mainstreaming a special needs population, a resource room in a school is an opportunity for those students to be kept on track -- for someone to check in with them on a daily basis, for some rapport to be established. This is particularly critical in elementary but equally critical in secondary, in grades 8, 9 and 10, as they move through the system. That's when students are lost from the education system. Frankly, the district and the ministry need to decide where they're going to pay. If they're not prepared to pay some dollars in the education system, they're going to pay it in a bunch of other avenues as those children become unsuccessful in school. Many of them will be unsuccessful in terms of seeking employment; they simply won't have the skills. The minister knows that.

We talk about career counselling. We talk about taking $265,000 out of career counselling assistance in schools. Yet this government waxes on at great length about youth employment. There are some glaring inconsistencies in the presentation that this minister is making this afternoon and the presentation that this Premier will make on his commitment to young people in this province. This is where it starts; it starts in the Ministry of Education. I believe that this government is overlooking its responsibilities.

A $484,000 reduction in enrolling teachers by assigning newly-arrived students to schools in neighbourhoods in which they do not reside. . . . If this government is truly committed to building communities -- and that's again one of the placards that's carried around this province by this government -- the actions don't follow the rhetoric. That's a concern to me when I come to this debate as a teacher, because I know full well the impacts this will have on children in the classroom. I believe this minister does, too, but he's prevented from stating his case more clearly.

Classroom assistance, $304,000 reduction. Those are people who deal directly with children face to face on a daily basis. It's not this minister; it's not this ministry. It's the people who deal with those kids who will be dramatically impacted. As a result, those students' learning will be compromised -- no question about that.

We talk about learning environments as educators. This government takes great delight in talking about building new schools, new places for kids. Yet there's a $500,000 reduction in custodial services. What kind of place is that, if it's not a clean, healthy learning environment? This government is going a few steps down that road and not completing the journey. If you're not prepared to adequately operate facilities, don't host yet another conference about how you're creating more spaces for education.

The classroom assistant issue: that's a significant issue for every district in this province. They talk about integrating special needs students, learning assistance students, ESL students. That's a dramatic impact -- a $977,000 reduction. That's people looking at kids face to face on a daily basis, and they will not be able to engage in the full range of their responsibilities, based on the fact that this government continues to stand up and say education is the top priority. Yet when given the opportunity to demonstrate how important it is to have adults working in positive situations with kids, that funding is removed. This government has reduced the funding to students per capita by $43.

I have no idea why this ministry would be proud of that, none at all. If it is indeed a priority, it should have been funded appropriately. This minister basically has to be the message bearer and somehow say: "We'll make the best of it." I think there's got to be more commitment and a clearer sense of priority when it comes to this government continuing to say that education is a priority. They're not demonstrating that commitment. That's why I am in this debate today. This government has gone to great lengths to advertise its commitment, but not very much has happened in terms of delivering on that commitment, and that's a huge concern to me.

The minister knows my concern is genuine, because he and I have been in this debate in this situation as critic and minister many times over the last six years. He knows that he is not meeting the needs of students in this province, and day after day he has to stand up and call himself the Minister of Education. This man also has the ability to remedy this situation, to put some priorities in place where students are valued. I would ask the minister to kindly respond.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just say a few general things first, since the member has said a few general things. First, the budget that we are debating is the sixth consecutive budget tabled by this government that has an increase in funding for education. There is no other Minister of Education in this 

[ Page 6137 ]

country that can stand up in an estimates debate and say that. While funding in school programs across this country has been slashed -- in some cases drastically -- funding in this province has increased by over 20 percent in the last five years. That is a significant commitment.

In the member's own district, as we've discussed, enrolment has grown rapidly -- by 16 percent. That school district now receives 31 percent more dollars than it did at the start of this decade. The member asks what we are putting money into and says we're ignoring some things. Well, $9.3 million goes to ESL. As the member well knows, the more ESL students, the more funding. Over $13 million goes to special education, and the funding we've put into special education went up by another $200,000 this year in Richmond. In career programs, the member talked about our commitment to youth, and there is over a 10 percent increase in funding for career programs in Richmond.

Having said all that, I recognize. . . . As the member referenced, I've spent most of my life as a teacher. I am certified as a secondary teacher, and I spent most of my career in post-secondary classrooms. I recognize that given their bottom-line preference, the preference would be for no cuts in any areas of school district operations. But that is not the reality. That is why both her leader and her party and our previous administration looked at amalgamating districts and finding savings from administration and areas outside the classroom. At the end of the day, the amount that we required is significantly less than what we set out to do and significantly less than her own leader said we should find in the school system.

I think the budgets -- and I don't pretend that these are easy budgets for school districts. . . . I do say that school districts in this province are receiving from the provincial government the highest funding per student of any school districts in Canada. We're not ninth, tenth, second or third, but first -- the most dollars per student of any province in Canada. I think that demonstrates this government's commitment to putting education at the top of their priority list rather than requiring the really significant reductions in education funding that we've seen in many other provinces across our country.

L. Reid: I want to put onto the record a letter written to the hon. Premier on behalf of our board chair, Sylvia Gwozd. It's dated May 21. There has been no response to this letter to date, and hopefully, a response will be forthcoming.

"The board of school trustees of school district No. 38 Richmond respectfully requests a meeting with the hon. Premier, with a view to discussing the board's 1997-98 preliminary operating budget.

"We also attach for your information, a copy of a recent article from the Richmond Review newspaper. You are quoted in the article as finding it 'shocking and surprising' that the local school board has chosen to eliminate the equivalent of more than 70 full-time jobs, 'given that we're increasing their funding.' But you are also reported to have admitted that Richmond's increase of $250,000 with which to meet the commitments of the coming year 'is not exactly a generous increase.'

"While you may have found it 'shocking and surprising' that more than 70 full-time jobs were eliminated, the reality is that the funding allocated to this district is not even adequate enough to maintain the current level of service. For the 1997-98 budget year, this district faces increased costs in the area of Canada Pension, other employee benefits, inflationary increases for non-salary items, teachers' salary increments and the need to provide educational services for an additional 242 students. To suggest that the additional $275,000 that was provided is sufficient to cover all these items and not have a major reduction in staffing is totally unrealistic.

"Mr. Premier, it is vitally important to our Richmond community, as well as to our school district, that we be given an opportunity to outline the effects of provincial funding reductions on the quality and security of education in our schools.

"The Minister of Education, Skills and Training has turned down a meeting with this board. We attach for your information a copy of our letter to the hon. minister, as well as the response of the minister's scheduling director. . . .

"On behalf of the board of school trustees, I would appreciate your consideration for a meeting with this school district as soon as possible. We look forward with anticipation to your favourable response.

". . .on behalf of the board of school trustees,

Sylvia Gwozd
Chairperson"

[3:15]

"The Richmond Nature Park wishes to voice its concern over the recent ruling that it is not legal for schools to charge students for access to curriculum-based educational experiences. We would be devastated if such a ruling came to the lower mainland.

"We provide a vital link between students and the environment that cannot be duplicated in a school classroom. Our park is situated on a rare and endangered wetland within a city centre. As urban expansion distances people from the environment, nature parks and field trips play a crucial role in re-establishing natural connections.

"We provide an opportunity for city children, and especially new Canadians, to participate in a variety of hands-on experiential programs. For many, this is their only contact with the natural world. If we expect the next generation to make responsible decisions about the environment, we must not jeopardize current educational opportunities.

"Sincerely yours,
Dolly Lewko"

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've received many letters like that, hon. member. It is indeed a great concern. I committed earlier in estimates to being able, hopefully, to announce in a couple of weeks how we'll deal with the school fees issue. I'm somewhat constrained because it is before the courts, as the member referenced. I've said that my goal here is to make sure that we are preserving the educational opportunities for our children outside the classroom as well as within. Clearly this society shares my view that those outside classroom activities are important to our children.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might revisit something that was said just prior to the noon break. You were talking at that time about the amount the funding had been increased in Richmond school district between '91-92 and the current fiscal year. I note indeed that it is 31.1 percent. It went from $101.5 million, roughly, to $133 million.

I wonder if we might look at this a different way, because I think you also mentioned that enrolment had only gone up by 16.2 percent -- that's the figure I have here. If you take the enrolment in 1991-92 and multiply it by the pupil funding for that particular year, you would get a funding adjustment on 

[ Page 6138 ]

that basically. . .if you were trying to bring everything that you had in '91 up to the '96-97 fiscal year, by saying: "Well, we've added this number of students." If they were funded under the '91 way, how much would you get for those extra students? How much would you get for the extra ESL enrolment, the 3,500 ESL students who have been added? When you work all that out, what you come up with is a figure of about $123.728 million. So it looks like it's 31 percent, but if you take into account that that 31 percent includes the new students, the ESL students and all those other funding things, you get really, in effect, an increase of slightly over $9 million -- 7.5 percent. But that difference of $9 million, if you funded your current students the way it was done in '91-92. . . . Do you want me to run through those figures again or just continue on my train of thought?

Anyway, that roughly $9 million now has taken into account the growth in the students, the ESL and all the others. It does not take into account inflationary costs, increases in the fringe benefits that are given to the employees, higher Workers Compensation Board fees, increments in salary increases or fuel. All those things have gone up in that time and pretty well use up the $9 million. So you might argue, and I think convincingly so, that in a sense the funding on a 1991-92 basis has not increased for Richmond.

I wonder if the minister might respond to that. At least, you were saying before, and you might say earlier: "You know, the province has kept its funding going up, whereas the others have gone down." I realize your argument there. In that sense, you could say, doing the argument I have, that at least it stayed stable. But let's just hear your comment, anyway.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Far be it for me to argue with all the member's figures. I'm not sure I fully understood his calculations. I will say that there's no doubt that some portion of the increase between '91 and now is eaten away by inflation and other factors. There's no doubt that we were asking schools, as we are all public services, to deliver the services that they provide more effectively and efficiently. That is a fact of public administration in the nineties.

It's not easy for Richmond or for other districts. My quoting of these figures was not to demonstrate excessive funding for Richmond but to counter what I sometimes hear from boards -- that funding has been reduced year after year. For example, Richmond makes a public case that they have, I believe they say, an $8.5 million shortfall this year. I could present shortfall budgets, too, saying: "This is my wish list of what I would like to have for all schools in the province, and this is what I got. I got a shortfall of. . .whatever." I don't think that is a realistic way of doing budgeting in the nineties.

So we are trying as much as we can to increase funding for schools, making them a priority. The fact that we have, as I just said, been able to provide for school districts the highest per-student funding of any province in the country demonstrates to many, I think, that we have held our commitment and have made this our top priority.

D. Symons: Part of the minister's support, I suppose, for the -- I hate to use the words -- funding cuts. . . . But let's say the reduction came out through the PERC report. I gather, in there, that the PERC report recommended a reduction of 1 percent of the administrative, operations and maintenance and transportation portions to the 75 school districts. I think it hasn't been applied equally across the 75 school districts, from what I can gather.

If you went on that basis and use that for Richmond, for instance, that would mean Richmond's funding would. . . . The degree of reduction in Richmond's funding has amounted, according to the board, to $1.033 million, roughly. But going by the PERC report, it should be only $750,000. So roughly it's -- what would that be? -- about three-quarters, if you use the PERC report, of the actual reduction in funding on a per-pupil basis if we'd kept funding going at the same rate as in previous years.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Surely the preference of school boards and many others would be for no reductions at all in funding for administration services. I think the PERC report itself even says that, in some ways. But given that there needed to be some efficiencies, the PERC report outlined some ways of doing it.

As we discussed with your colleague from Richmond, the targets from the PERC report were the ones that we've been consulting the school districts about. The targets were for, I think, a $13 million reduction in the first year, for '96-97. We waived that. We said we didn't even announce amalgamation until March of '96. Asking them to do that by September would be too soon. However, this year, for '97-98, we have adopted the target of $27 million.

You and your colleague, who just left the chamber, formerly referred to precisely the point that you're making. My explanation, made several times, was that when we consulted about the 1997-98 budget and talked to school trustees, superintendents, parents and secretary-treasurers about how we should effect this $27 million in savings this year, they recommended to us -- and we adopted the recommendation -- that we do it differently than the PERC report recommended, which had it divided into three or four different categories, and really have the school districts make the decision about how they deal with their portion of the reduction and not attempt to micromanage them. So that is what we put into place with this budget.

I've run through the figures for Richmond. I think everybody in the room understands the figures. Richmond's budget would have been far higher, a greater increase, had it not -- like other districts -- been asked to do a part of this cost saving of administration and support. Again, let me conclude where I started. I recognize that the preference would be for no reduction in this area. It is necessary. We're trying to do it in the most fair way possible.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might just take a look for a moment at capital projects. I suspect the minister will know which particular capital project I'm going to ask about, Burnett School. But on March 7, 1997, I think, the ministry put out its list of the '97-98 capital plan for Richmond school district. I have a copy of a letter here.

Further along, toward the end of that particular one, just before we get to the 30 at the bottom, page 2, halfway down it says: "Planning for J.N. Burnett Secondary may continue this year, subject to implementation of an extended-day schedule" -- which the school board has agreed to. "To accommodate future enrolment growth, government will also consider funding to enable this project to proceed to construction in 1997-98." It's that last portion, I guess, that I'm concerned about.

I have no doubt that the minister has received correspondence from the board, the PAC groups and everybody else on this particular project, because indeed when the change in the growth in Burnett was to take place and initial construction was envisaged, it was going to be one big project. For fiscal reasons it was broken into phase 1 and phase 2, for funding flow. Unfortunately, the phase 2 funding flow has got delayed.

[ Page 6139 ]

As I read this, it sounds as if it's possible that there could be funding for the construction phase, phase 2. Yet when I read the numbers that are given for the cash flow, I find that the funding isn't there in the cash flow. So are those cash flow figures just up to that particular date? Are they likely to be increased or changed during the remainder of this fiscal year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I've got enough information to address some of the concerns of the member. If not, I'm sure he'll advise me, and we'll do some further stuff.

Look, first let me say we are committed to doing all we can to deal with what clearly is the need for additional schools in Richmond. Just for the record, I want to point out that over the last four years -- and it's a slightly different figure than we were using before -- Richmond's enrolment has risen by 2,400 students. This has really exacerbated the space problems. In the same period, we've actually built and opened 3,775 spaces, so we're chewing into the backlog. Are we there yet? No, of course not. That's why, in all the stuff that we've talked about, we have literally thousands of additional spaces that we're constructing in Richmond. If we took six years of capital funding for Richmond -- from 1992-93 to the current year, 1997-98 -- the total spent is $128 million on schools in Richmond. It's the third-highest of any district in the province, and I say, "appropriately so," because they have enrolment growth that needs schools.

[3:30]

D. Symons: I recognize the difficulty that the ministry has had in the sort of catch-up that they've been forced into doing since being elected. I appreciate the fact that we have a very good number of schools, I think, that are built much better than the ones that we're now having to do major renovations on, and they should last us for a good number of years. So in that sense I will say that you have done a good job. The problem is, of course, that there is still one heck of a lot of portables within Richmond, and I've watched those portable cities grow over the years I've been a parent and a citizen of that particular community. I'm pleased to hear that the phase 2 construction of Burnett is possibly a go.

I heard the minister mention cash flow, and I have a problem, I guess, because I was told by the secretary-treasurer of the board that basically a while ago, because they have problems in how they're going to take the cash flow that's given and where it goes. . . . They've been given somewhere near $30 million cash, and with $61 million of projects that need cash flows, they're a little bit pressed. But they've been told that they can basically move it around somewhat, for number one, which of course sometimes puts Burnett lower down on the list, because it's more convenient to keep another one going, which is a bit of a problem.

But, also, there's something called the certificate of approval, I gather. The secretary-treasurer was told a short while ago, "Well, while you're waiting for the certificate of approval, you can basically go ahead and let some contracts," and what not. Basically, they can take the money out of their operating budget. He says there's no way he's going to do that, because, indeed, if the funding does not come, they won't have their operating budget there, which they have to protect. So he was sort of surprised, and I'm sort of surprised, that that suggestion would even be there; that as an interim measure, you can dip into your operating budget and use that money and wait for the certificate of approval. But these certificates of approval, I gather, are issued through the Employment and Investment ministry, and it seems that. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: No? A mistake.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They do it.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

D. Symons: They do it. Oh, that's great, then, because I was told that it came from there. If that's the case, at least one of the certificates of approval was sitting on Employment and Investment's desk somehow, and there was some problem that there's a holdup between working with one ministry and the other.

So maybe you might answer this question, then, beyond the other things I've rattled on about here: does the Minister of Employment and Investment become involved in anything that the Ministry of Education is dealing with in school construction? Do they have any input whatsoever?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. The Minister of Finance and his staff in Treasury Board supervise the projects, but not the Minister of Employment and Investment.

I have just been handed a note. Oh, my. I guess I won't do a news release; I'll just tell you. Another certificate of approval authorizing a project to go to tender was issued this morning for, of all places, Matthew McNair Senior Secondary School in Richmond. I don't know how the hell that happened, but it did. It's very good. I'm very pleased, actually. My son graduated from Matthew McNair.

D. Symons: Actually, I think if I just flip pages here quickly. . . . I don't want to get into things that the critic will be reviewing later on, because those are the main questions I had.

This is a little bit off the particular topic we are dealing with; you may not have the figure here, and I'd understand if that's the case. But I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of how much is collected in school taxes. That might go to the Minister of Finance, I suspect, rather than through there. But if you might be able to find out that figure from the city of Richmond for the last year that the information is available, it would be a rather interesting figure compared to the spending that is going on in Richmond.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is $43.1 million.

D. Symons: The minister may remember; I think it was in February. I wrote a letter to the minister -- somewhat critical, I guess. It had to do with the first 11 schools that the member for Richmond East mentioned, and the expansion of that -- the other school projects that were going ahead later on. I basically asked a series of questions on the criteria used for 

[ Page 6140 ]

which projects went ahead and which didn't, and so forth. I'm still waiting for a response. So you could have your staff search through there. I think it was February. I would appreciate that.

Again, from the chair of our board, writing to city council, actually, and dealing with other issues of education. . . . But she said: "I challenge the Premier to cite any examples of initiatives that have not been pursued in this district which have some proven efficiency to benefit students. This is our community's main frustration. We have done it all, and yet it goes unrecognized by the politicians in Victoria." I hope I'm not one of those. I think, in a sense, that is part of the frustration that the board has in that they seem to have been willing to look at alternative schooling, alternative hours, extended day, all those various things -- anything to get the schools they need. They feel a little frustrated in the sense that they are bending over backwards, so to speak, to meet any criteria that the minister puts there.

Again, I go back to that letter I wrote, asking what the criteria were, because I would certainly be interested to know how the first 11 schools stacked up compared to Burnett and McRoberts in Richmond.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'll make sure you get an answer to that. I don't know what happened to it. I do remember seeing a copy of it.

Let me just say this about this whole 11-schools issue. I talked about it earlier in estimates. I explained to the critic what messages we hoped we were sending with that group as far as ending the freeze, building schools all across the province and doing things differently. I said very clearly that hindsight is wonderful, and obviously, had we to do it over again, we would have made the second announcement when we did the first announcement, when we announced all 100 projects we will attempt to get planned and constructed over the next few years. I think that announcement really puts the boot to the allegation that only New Democratic ridings are receiving funding for schools.

Look, your secretary-treasurer talked about the difficulties of living with a $30 million cash flow for capital. That's one-tenth of all the capital that this ministry is spending on school construction this year. Last time I checked, none of the MLAs from Richmond were sitting on this side of the House. We are going to build schools where they're needed; we spend money regardless of who represents the district. In Richmond we have made some progress over the last several years in chewing into what is admittedly a backlog. Hopefully, with lower population growth anticipated in the schools in Richmond and in the province in the next year, we can chew into that backlog even more. My goal is clear: to get as many schools built as efficiently as possible. School districts around the province are cooperating with our ministry to that end.

There's one last thing I want to just touch on briefly, because I know it'll come up again, and I want to make sure it's on the record. There surely is a concern in Richmond that they did a lot of work to try to save money, and then we asked them for even more savings initiatives. Look, had we not done that, I think we would have been very rightly criticized, perhaps even flayed, for not listening to the results of the capital review that we put in place. If anything came out of the anxiety -- and there was a lot of anxiety around the capital freeze -- it was that we did find a series of measures that we think we could put in place to get more schools built with fewer tax dollars, that therefore would enable us to address the demand more quickly.

D. Symons: Just one last question that's not entirely related to what we've been discussing in the last few minutes, and that's on the issue of year-long schooling. I believe there were four school districts that were going to act as pilot projects on year-long schooling in 1994; supposedly, they were to begin in the '94-95 year for a two-year working of that, and then there would be an evaluation in the '96-97 year. Those two years are now up, so I wonder if you can give us a progress report on the year-round schooling project.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This was a pilot project that one of my predecessors set up that actually involved eight elementary schools initially. I have to report to you that only one has now made it to the point where they have actually requested and gotten funding for a school that will operate on a year-round basis. It's Kanaka Creek Elementary in Maple Ridge. It's a school that would have a capacity of 400 students in a normal school year; because it's operating year round, it will actually accommodate 600 students. That's significant savings.

When I've been asked about this initiative, what I've been doing is urging school districts to meet with parent groups and discuss the possibility of expanding that initiative and trying it. I will also say very clearly that this is a huge change, not just in the way we do schooling but almost in the way we organize our lives. Saying that we're going to stagger vacations around the year is something that seven out of eight school districts found was a little too hard to implement. I'm very pleased that Kanaka Creek is going ahead. I hope that in the future we'll have more pilots, and we'll work with any school district that wants to put in place a pilot project on year-round elementary schooling.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. Yes, the parents and everybody are going to have to rejig their lives in a sense, as you say there -- to take their holidays when their students are available and when it's not their turn to be in school. Having been a teacher for a good number of years, I'm interested in that because I know there was a lot of opposition to it from teachers.

[3:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We recently held a forum on extended days, in which teachers, trustees, parents, ministry folks and others from around the province came together to discuss both how efficiency in scheduling and extended days could be implemented and some of the challenges. I think that what came out of that was a recognition that there is a shared goal out there to have fewer students being taught in portables or ancillary space and more being taught in permanent structures. That's something that teachers, trustees, parents and the ministry share. Now, I think that has to, I hope, carry us through in making sure that things like contracts and working arrangements fall into place. In some districts, boards have already talked to their teachers, and arrangements have been 

[ Page 6141 ]

put in place. I think we need clearly to set the goal and work toward it jointly -- whether in the ministry or as school trustees or teachers.

J. Dalton: I mainly want to concentrate on North Shore capital projects, but I just want to pursue one item that came up this morning before I get to that.

Our critic was asking the minister about cost-cutting measures dealing with cooperative ventures between school districts. Some questions and answers were going back and forth about what was being accomplished, and the minister made a comment about district initiatives in one of his remarks this morning. I'm wondering if the minister would like to comment on a letter that the past chair of the West Vancouver school board wrote to him on April 15. I say "past chair" because it was Dr. Ken Haycock, who just stepped out of the chair recently for business reasons; Clive Bird is now the new chair in West Vancouver.

Ken Haycock wrote to the minister about an initiative that West Vancouver, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Mission, Langley and Grand Forks were discussing with regard to payroll and human resource systems. I understand, from my discussions with Dr. Haycock and also from this letter, that Garry Wouters, who was then the Deputy Minister of Finance, was approached by the consultant Guy Huntington, who lives in Horseshoe Bay and who is assisting West Vancouver and the other districts on this project. Apparently the project was endorsed by Mr. Wouters, and in subsequent conversations with senior ministry staff, we were told that the government wanted to proceed with the project. They were all ready to gear up to have a meeting on April 14 when the plug was pulled, apparently. As Dr. Haycock writes to the minister: "Your ministry has decided to change course. We have been informed that your government is unable to make its commitment to this project."

I understand from this letter that they anticipated a saving of $5 million annually over time, but they needed a $1 million startup to get this thing going. Can the minister assist us as to what happened to this initiative, given that this seemed to be the very sort of thing that his ministry was encouraging?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think this is a project that is worth pursuing. The original proposal was agreed to by the previous deputy as something that in principle he was interested in pursuing. Ministry staff have done a fair bit of work with that consortia and others. It hasn't led to a firm project that can be funded to go ahead at this time. Frankly, one of the questions the ministry is asking the school districts is: "It's going to save you $5 million. So why don't you guys finance it?"

The other questions, though, have to. . . . I want to just back up a little bit. The initial proposal was actually to simply adapt what is called the CHIPS system, which the public service runs on, and use it out there -- really it was to just provide it. I think that was the million dollar cost. Various other software vendors then came forward and said: "Hold on, guys. We produce payroll systems that are as good and as worthy of consideration as this." So at present the ministry is meeting with that consortia and with the Public Sector Employers Council staff, because clearly such a system would have benefits both for bargaining as well as for payroll management. It is not a proposal which is dormant. It's something we are actively moving on, though clearly the shape of it is evolving.

J. Dalton: Thank you. I certainly will continue to track this. It does sound very encouraging that this sort of initiative is out there, and obviously I think we all want to work towards a resolution of those things.

Now I'll ask some questions about capital projects in both North and West Vancouver, as my riding covers both sides of the river, and I'll start with North Vancouver. As the minister knows, on June 3 he came out with his announcement of minor capital projects. Several North Vancouver schools, which are of particular interest to my constituents, are on that list. As soon as this announcement in early June came out, I started to make some phone calls, and I talked to various school principals in both North and West Van, to secretary-treasurers and to school board superintendents when available.

With regard to North Vancouver -- let's just start with that -- I just want to get an update, a status report, on one of the schools that is on the list. Montroyal Elementary School is on the list for $1.1 million. I have an internal memo from the secretary-treasurer of North Vancouver to the staff. . . .

I guess we are just about to vote. That's funny, hon. Chair. The last time I was on my feet in another estimates, the same thing happened to me. They're picking on me, but we'll continue.

The Chair: Members, we have a division in Committee B. We'll reconvene following that division.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I will pick up where we left off. I was asking the minister about Montroyal Elementary in North Van. The board submission was for $1.2 million. The approval of June '97 is $1.1 million, which is not a significant decrease, but it is less. There's an observation in this memo from the secretary-treasurer. He feels that the lower sum has yet to be explained. I believe it relates to the ministry's efficiency requirements. Can the minister tell us whether the reduction from the original board request is on this issue of efficiency? If so, how would Montroyal or other schools in North Vancouver comply with these efficiency requirements?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm here to confirm the secretary-treasurer's intuition, but I'm surprised that he doesn't have more than intuition on it. We are requiring a 10 percent reduction in these projects. It's a space reduction, and that applies to these additions as well as to new facilities.

J. Dalton: That's fair enough. There are a couple of other elementary schools in there, but I don't think I need to deal with those. They're both in the minor category, as well.

Back on April 29 a two-page facilities branch list of North Vancouver schools was issued. It has both the minor and the major projects listed on it. Montroyal appears on here, and I see the same amount that we just dealt with. Some of the other schools on it are not within my riding boundary, so I won't trespass on the territory of my colleagues from Seymour and Lonsdale. However, one school certainly is of interest to me, because I have a daughter who's still got two more years to complete at Handsworth, and my son just graduated from that school.

Handsworth Secondary has been on the major list for a long time, and of course it's been frozen and unfrozen. On 

[ Page 6142 ]

June 17, I talked to Terry Shaw, the principal of Handsworth, as to what he thought the current status of the project was, and he was uncertain. I then called the board office and talked to John Montgomery, one of the assistant superintendents, and he told me that they were expecting a letter from Victoria -- which they thought would have arrived in May -- dealing with preconditions that must be included in a school board resolution.

The second point as far as funding is that Mr. Montgomery thought that the capital funds would probably be in the range of $2.5 million to $2.7 million, a reduction from the original request of $3.2 million or thereabouts. The other question related to that is: are there any advance funds provided so that the school district can start discussing plans with architects and contractors and other people?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry advises me that a letter went out on July 11 to North Van with the conditions for approval of this project. The member is right: those conditions need to be incorporated into a school district resolution. The current revised budget for that project is $2.99 million.

J. Dalton: That's good news, because, as I just said, we thought that maybe it would be less.

The other point is: have there been any advance funds provided so that Handsworth and the school district can now start planning into the next stage of this project?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The district does have planning approval in place. Staff advise me that they probably have around $250,000 to do the work of planning.

J. Dalton: Good. Well, that's great, then, as far as North Van.

If I can now cross the Capilano River into West Vancouver. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope it doesn't flood.

J. Dalton: Well, I hope that the bridge is still standing. Some members may have heard that there was an unfortunate motor vehicle accident just at the west end of that bridge over the Capilano River yesterday. However, that's not what we're here for. I won't deviate from the education issues.

There are two very important projects within the boundaries of my riding in West Vancouver -- the two secondary schools, West Vancouver Secondary and Sentinel. West Vancouver, as the minister will know, has gone through a very significant expansion phase, but they have another phase to complete it, and Sentinel is, I guess, on this waiting list. West Vancouver, in the same announcement of June 3, received funding of $2.09 million for minor capital projects. Bowen Island Elementary and others were mentioned in that, but I'm obviously interested in the status, firstly, of West Vancouver Secondary.

I called the school board on the same day, June 17. I was quite busy on the telephone that day, trying to get this funding issue sorted out. I asked the new secretary-treasurer of West Van school district what his understanding was of the status of both West Vancouver Secondary and Sentinel at that time. I also talked to the principal at Sentinel Secondary. Both of these people were -- quite similar to North Vancouver -- not quite certain as to what the figures were, firstly, and again, what the status was of any advance funds so that they could sit down, as North Vancouver has to do, and start the planning, heading into the construction stage. So if the minister could assist me by just updating the status of both those high schools, it would be helpful.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's my day to get an update on capital projects from staff; I haven't had an update recently.

Let me just run through a couple of points for you, hon. member. West Vancouver Secondary has now completed all the phases that they need to do. It has actually been approved, and they've been authorized to tender that project in the amount of $7.2 million. So I anticipate -- I would hope -- that they will be tendering that in the next few weeks. We could see construction begin on that early in the fall.

On the Sentinel project, a letter went out on July 8 to the school district, incorporating the conditions for approval. It's authorized for planning this fiscal year and for construction in a subsequent year. The amount of that project is at $6.4 million.

J. Dalton: Well, that all seems to be good news. I won't test my luck or anything else and presume any further.

I thought I would ask just one other thing while I'm on my feet; it's not directly related, as the minister will hear when I ask the question. When I was talking to Bob Overgaard, who was a past principal at Sentinel, he told me that he's now a regional coordinator in the lower mainland, and he'll be headquartered at the Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre in North Vancouver. I was just interested in what the status is of these regional coordinators. Bob told me that there'll be three in the metro area, and then around British Columbia there'll be two in the Okanagan, a half in New Westminster -- if my notes are right; I don't know why New West would get a half -- a half in the northeast, Vancouver Island will have two, and the Kootenays will have one.

Is that a reasonable snapshot of these regional coordinators, and what will their function be throughout the province? I guess the other question would obviously be: what funding is provided, and is this money for these regional coordinators coming out of school district budgets?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Several things. First, the money is not coming out of school district budgets; it's coming out of ministry budgets. It's from the field services team in the ministry. The role of these coordinators is to work on implementation and planning for curriculum and other activities at school districts. It's one of the ways that we keep in touch and try to assist school districts with the many challenges that they face.

B. McKinnon: When I talked to the Surrey school board, there still seemed to be a cloud of mystery over how and when projects will be released from the capital freeze. There is now a mandate to build schools more efficiently with stock plans and the need for efficiency scheduling at the secondary level, but there still seems to be some mystery as to how this all comes about. We know that taxpayers don't want to pay more taxes, but they still want more and improved services and facilities. I guess the answer is to be more creative, more innovative and more efficient. I was wondering if the minister had given any consideration to modular buildings for schools, as it is a much cheaper way of building schools.

[4:15]

[ Page 6143 ]

about. Current experience in the ministry has been that there's not a significant cost differential between modular construction and stick-built. There was actually a project that was done; Boundary Beach Elementary was a modular construction. I mean, the ministry is not going to talk a school district out of it if that's their preference, but there doesn't seem to be a large differential in cost between the price per square metre of a modular-built versus a conventionally constructed school. And there are some concerns about differences in quality -- the on-site construction being slightly higher.

B. McKinnon: The reason I brought it to your attention was that I thought there were actually savings in building those schools. And where the kids have all moved away and you don't need that school anymore, you can take it down and move it to where you do need it. So I thought that sounded pretty good.

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: Yes, portable schools. Actually my questions are going to be more on the capital projects, and I'm going to start with my riding and Fraser Heights area secondary. It's a new school that was lifted from the freeze. I understand that before the freeze it was ready to go to construction: is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has an interesting project going on in her own riding which, I think, illustrates some of the initiatives that we're trying to work on with districts. With Surrey school districts, we're actually going to be building two secondary schools in Surrey -- pretty much the same capacity. . . .

B. McKinnon: That isn't my question.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll get to it. Clayton secondary and Fraser Heights secondary have one plan and one architect doing them both. Staff advise me that negotiations with the architect and others around this are nearly complete. We do anticipate that we'll be going to construction this year.

B. McKinnon: That isn't my question.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Ask it again, then. I'll try to listen more carefully to the member.

B. McKinnon: My question was: Fraser Heights secondary was ready to go to construction just before the freeze -- is that correct or not? It is just a yes-or-no question.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that it is about halfway through preparation of working drawings.

B. McKinnon: My question was then going to be, and is still going to be: how much does it cost the ministry to bring this school back to the drawings? I was also going to ask about Clayton secondary and the cost, because I know that that one was definitely ready to go to construction before the freeze happened -- the drawings and everything had been done. Now, how much more money are we spending on this school by sending it back to be redrawn?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The redesign will probably cost us around an additional $600,000.

B. McKinnon: Per school.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, total. We anticipate that we'll be saving $5 million in total on the project, so I think it's definitely the right decision. I know it's a little bit frustrating for parents who feel that it's supposed to happen right now, when we asked them to find other ways of redesigning and saving money. But we are saving money, and that goes into additional schools.

B. McKinnon: I'm not going to argue that point, but I'm curious. . . . The two schools have cost an extra $600,000 to get redesigned and come back. Could you tell me where the $5 million in savings is?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The savings are from three different areas, which are all from the measures that we announced following the capital freeze and the review: first, reduced unit cost per square metre -- we're requiring about a 15 percent reduction in per square metre cost of construction, and that's savings; second, a 10 percent reduction in space requirements -- we're trying to build schools that are slightly smaller but, we think, still of very good quality; and third, by the use of the extended day, and being able to accommodate around 1,200 students in space more traditionally designed for about 1,000.

B. McKinnon: When do you expect Fraser Heights secondary and Clayton secondary to actually start construction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise that we expect it in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. . .

B. McKinnon: Which is this fall.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .which is January through March.

B. McKinnon: When do you expect this school to be completed, so students can actually start using it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff are debating the issue: either fall of 1999 or January of 2000.

B. McKinnon: Not until then. What are we going to do?

The capacity for students going to these schools -- and it is in a continually growing area. . . . Do you see that there are going to be portables on the school as soon as the school is completed? Because you sent this school back to the drawing board and made it smaller, is that going to affect the number of students in the area because of the growth? The number of people that are coming into the area for both schools is still growing day by day. My concern is: are we going to be building smaller schools to save money and then bringing portable after portable after portable onto the school grounds? Those are like modular schools.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't anticipate that the reductions in space that we're requiring will result in reduced capacity. These schools are being planned on the capacity that was worked out with the school districts. Most of the savings in space were anticipated from service areas and non-instructional areas of the school. That is one of the ways we can squeeze a little and get more dollars, but it shouldn't compromise or reduce the instructional area.

The other point that I'd make is that because we are going to be having extended days at these schools, the new schools 

[ Page 6144 ]

will accommodate more because they will be used longer each day. Again, that is a way of making sure that we deal as efficiently as we can with growth.

I'd just say very generally to the member that, as with Richmond -- I think you sat in on the debates we had around construction there -- I surely recognize that we are dealing with a situation in Surrey in which the school-age population grew more rapidly in the past than school construction. We've been able to reverse that in the last four years. While overall enrolment has grown by something like 5,300 or 5,400 students, we've actually opened space for over 7,000 students in the Surrey school district, and that chews into some of the backlog. We're going to continue to work on it as hard as we can through the measures we're putting in place, and we are getting good cooperation with Surrey.

I might point out that we have 37 projects that we anticipate will complete planning and begin construction sometime this fiscal year -- sometime between now and the end of March '98. Of those 37 projects, eight are in Surrey, so we are building schools in Surrey. I'm not even sure which ridings they are in, quite frankly. I do know we need to build them in all areas.

B. McKinnon: I'd like to carry on my conversation and find out where Fraser Heights area elementary school is on the list and when you plan to bring that one to construction, because that was also just lifted from the freeze. I would like to know when it's starting construction, when it is going to be completed and what the student capacity for that school is going to be.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This project, too, is in addition to the initiatives you already outlined -- the one that I talked about with the secondary schools -- where we are working on building three elementary schools in Surrey with the same plan: Fraser Heights, Simon Cunningham and Boundary Park. All of them are now under planning, and we expect a timetable for beginning construction. Staff advise me that they anticipate it will be the same as for the two secondary schools -- sometime in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

B. McKinnon: So the completion date will be around the same time as the secondary schools are going to be done, approximately.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a little shorter time than for a secondary school. Usually, it's 18 months or less, and so the anticipated date is September '99.

B. McKinnon: It sounds like all these schools are going to be ready for the next election; they're planned well. Those are the schools in my area that I was very concerned about.

Now I would like to ask about some of the other schools in Surrey. The first one is Earl Marriott Secondary and the addition. What is happening to this school, and when is the completion of this addition going to happen? And how much more capacity will that give this school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff have been working with Surrey officials and others rescoping that project, because we are requiring extended days. We don't expect as much of an addition as had originally been anticipated. We feel most of the renovations are needed, and so we hope to get the formal approval for the planning phase of this out the door in the next couple of months.

B. McKinnon: Then it will go to tender?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. Then it will go into the construction budget for a subsequent fiscal year. We have not announced which projects go to construction in 1998-99 or 1999-2000. We have lots of projects, and we're trying to get them phased in a timely fashion within the means that we have, within the debt cap that we have to deal with.

On a lighter note, I just want to comment on the member's observations that we're going to be opening a bunch of schools before the next election. I think she ought to get out there and claim full credit, of course, and praise the government for its wonderful job in accommodating enrolment growth in Surrey.

[4:30]

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: Okay, thanks.

The next school I would like to ask about is Quibble Creek elementary school. What is the status on that school -- it's in Surrey -- and has construction started yet? Or when will it start, and when will completion be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has stumped us. We'll do some research and get the information to you in writing.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The site didn't help. If you've got an address, maybe they can do the work on it.

B. McKinnon: The site is No. 112 in the Surrey school district, and it's on 90th Avenue at 137A Street. It was released from the capital freeze, and the board approved the standard plan concept proposed by Graham Mathiasen, architects. So I just want to know. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is not called Coyote Creek?

B. McKinnon: This says Quibble Creek.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have a Coyote Creek, but we don't know a Cripple Creek.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: Well, they could have made an error, but that's a really strange error.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is.

B. McKinnon: Okay, then I'll go on. Boundary Park area elementary school is a new school on Boundary Drive North and 123A Street. It has been released from the capital freeze, and the standard plan concept has been proposed. I would 

[ Page 6145 ]

like to know when this school will go to tender, when approximately it will go to construction and the approximate completion date.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I did reference this when I was talking about Fraser Heights elementary. Fraser Heights elementary, Boundary Park area elementary and Simon Cunningham elementary will all be going to tender about the same time: the fourth quarter. Completion is anticipated around 18 months from the time you actually get the ground broken.

B. McKinnon: Another new school in Surrey which is actually a replacement school is the William Davidson Elementary School. I want to ask the same questions on that one: will it go to tender? When is construction going to start, and when is the completion date?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The new name is Lionel Courchene Park elementary. It has been approved to go to tender in the amount of $8.4 million, and I expect that the school board will be tendering it in the very near future and that construction will start shortly.

B. McKinnon: Now I'd like to bring your attention to Princess Margaret Secondary School, a replacement school. I would like to know where this school is at right now, how many students are expected and when this project will be released from the capital freeze. Do you have any idea?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of the projects that was actually one of the very first that got released, because the school board, in working with teachers, had already started talking about implementing an extended day. They had already agreed to some lower unit costs and some lower space requirements for the school. Planning is, staff tell me, going a little more slowly than people had first anticipated. We expect tenders to be let in the third quarter of this year -- that's the October-to-December period.

B. McKinnon: I was just thinking -- and for the minister's information -- that Quibble Creek school is probably Coyote Creek school. Surrey has so many creeks, and that's probably the original name. There's a golf course by the name of Coyote Creek golf course, so they probably just refer to the school with that name. But I would imagine that Quibble Creek and Coyote Creek are probably the same school. We have a lot of creeks in Surrey.

I'd like to ask about Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School and what is happening with that school. It was supposed to be torn down. I think demolition has commenced. How is that going along? When is construction expected to be completed, and how many students are going to be going to that school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It has been planned for a capacity of 1,400. The contract has already been tendered and let, so the construction is ongoing now. The anticipated time is around two years for completing the secondary school, so it's surely available for the fall of 1999.

B. McKinnon: When that school is completed, does the minister expect to have any portables being set up immediately because of the projection of students coming in?

Hon. P. Ramsey: You try to do projections and make sure you've got capacity. Sometimes you hit it; sometimes you don't. I must confess that in my own riding we have a much smaller project and we have smaller growth in the school district. We did a $7 million addition-renovation to Kelly Road Secondary School, back in, I think, '94 or '95. The new, refurbished school with additional capacity opened its doors -- and within a year we had four portables in the ground, because all of a sudden that area of the city started just booming. It wasn't something that either the school board or the ministry had anticipated. So you do your best projections and sometimes you get it right.

The real challenge, of course, is to avoid drastic overbuilding, because if you make it way too big and you have empty space, you really are paying a premium for empty space.

B. McKinnon: I'm sure that the minister has had a tremendous amount of letters from my constituents -- wanting their schools built and asking why they weren't. I know that a great many of my constituents are under a tremendous amount of stress, worrying about whether their kids are going to get the proper education that they feel is their right. I understand that the money is tight, and that sort of thing, and I know that the minister is putting at least $25 million into my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. But the thing is that the kids are there; they need the education and the schools are overcrowded.

I have finished asking my questions. But I would just like to ask the minister to give consideration to getting these projects moving as fast as they can, because I really feel that in my riding -- in Surrey as a whole, but in my riding in particular, because the growth factor is so fast and so large -- we are in a crisis situation when it comes to education. So I just ask that you give some consideration to getting these projects on the move as fast as you can, because our students need it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: You can report to your constituents that you represented their needs well. Here, as elsewhere in the province, we recognize the need for additional schools. But let me say it very clearly: we have also heard quite firmly from the taxpayers of the province that we are going to live within overall debt caps that we are setting -- a certain percentage of GDP -- and that does face us with considerable pressure.

I wish I had $500-600 million to spend on schools this year and next year. The reality is that we can't do that and accommodate all of the other needs that we have for health facilities, increased transportation facilities and the like -- which your constituents also want. So the real challenge here -- and I think that the ministry and the school boards are dealing with it well -- is to do as much as we can with the existing money: where we clearly are going to have to defer a project longer than we would like, and there are renovations that should and could be done to extend the life of an existing building, do that and make all possible efficiencies.

You've seen in your own riding, in your own school district, some of the work that's being done in reduced size, extended days, reduced costs, and now -- with common plans -- further attempts to reduce the overall cost of getting good space for our students. I share the member's commitment to making sure that all of our children have high-quality spaces in which to learn.

P. Reitsma: I have a number of questions for the minister. I'll refrain from getting into a political exchange, I suppose. I appreciate the minister saying that we've heard from the 

[ Page 6146 ]

public in terms of cost-cutting. I must reiterate, though, that just before the election last year, they told the public to expect all kinds of projects on schools. I've said many times in the past: when all is said and done, more is said than done. That often is the case.

I also appreciate the preparatory work. I've used the phrase before: it wasn't raining when Noah was building the ark, but when it did rain, he was prepared. I think this is a philosophy that we should use, as well, as we do in business, of course.

A couple of questions, if I might. It was established the other day that in my school districts -- district 68, partially, which I share with the Speaker, of course, and district 69, which is the Parksville-Qualicum area -- the per-student contribution is down $67 in school district 68, and down $11 in school district 69. Before I go into the questions, I'll throw in school district 70, which is Alberni and Clayoquot. The reason I throw it in is that it was this particular minister who was the Minister of Education about three or four years ago, when all of a sudden in September -- probably about 1995 -- I got a panic call from the school trustees and the chairman. All of a sudden, starting in September, it was dictated to them that there would be an amalgamation. They gave me the reasons why there ought not to be an amalgamation of school district 69 and school district 70, which was Alberni. There was quite a bit of angry anticipation.

I do have businesses in Alberni, and in fact I used to be mayor of Alberni, so I've had lots of contact with the school districts, the trustees and so on. As the minister knows, Alberni is declining -- something like 100 secondary students per year -- while the Parksville-Qualicum area, school district 69, is generally going up 100 to 150 per year.

Instructions were given, in no uncertain terms. If amalgamation was forced upon them, there was talk of kids in school district 69 being bused to school district 70, because some of the schools were closing. The administration and so on would be moved to school district 70.

[4:45]

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: When we did the amalgamation, back in 1996, we had quite an extended period of consultation. If we were to plan any future ones, we would also consult. We have no plans to do any future ones at this time.

P. Reitsma: Do I understand the minister to say there are no future plans for district 69, in terms of any potential amalgamation, either with 68 or 70, which is in Alberni?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again. I think I said it clearly: there are no plans at this time for future amalgamations. I can't rule out what happens in ten or 15 years. There are no current plans for future amalgamations.

P. Reitsma: That's the answer I was looking for, and that will be conveyed to the appropriate people.

Before I go into the capital projects. . . . I've got quite a number of letters from very concerned parents, and indeed the Coombs-Hilliers volunteer fire department as well. I won't quote the letters verbatim. Has the minister received those letters? They're very concerned.

I must confess to an extremely personal bias, although I don't see myself in a conflict of interest. I've noticed the minister from time to time very proudly talking about: "My children went to this particular school." Well, hon. Chair, it so happens that my two children went to this particular school in French Creek. It's an absolutely wonderful school. I anticipate some of the answers of the minister. It's a fairly rural school. I used to live there, and my previous wife and one of the children still live there. It's very rural; it's next to the Coombs market with the goats on top. You might have been through there on the way to the Pacific Rim. It's really an absolutely wonderful school. My children went to school there in the early seventies.

However, the concern expressed. . . . The school board trustees in district 69 decided to close down French Creek Elementary in order to increase the size of the new Bennett Road and Errington elementary schools. This is being done without notice to our community and without a chance for us to reply.

On the planning parameters, the reinforcement of the concept of neighbourhood schools is mentioned, with those schools serving contiguous areas. Also mentioned is minimum busing cost and travel time. Children in grades K to 5 who live near Little Qualicum Falls Park would be looking at a very long bus ride to get to the new Bennett Road school. They also will be attending school in a community very different from the one they live in. Closing the French Creek school will tear apart what is the central focus in our community -- the school itself. Attendance is also supposed to be based on area boundaries, community and the avoidance of splitting up residential subdivisions -- i.e., communities. If the study is implemented, as in our community, then its school will be eliminated.

The boundaries they came up with demonstrate that they have no idea of what our community is about. For instance, zone 7 on the map is called Coombs, even though the major part of Coombs is in zones 15 and 16. Also in this zone are parts of Errington. The community of Coombs is cut into many pieces on this map, and this is being used to justify the board's already-made decision to close the school.

The students who attend French Creek school have been extremely fortunate to have an atmosphere to learn in where they are well cared for and treated like family, something that will not be possible in larger elementary schools. Building a larger school for both the Coombs-Hilliers area and Errington will not be good for either area. What we have now in both areas are rural children going to rural schools, and I'm sure that if the board were to look at the facts of the matter before making the decision, they would see that French Creek school is very viable well into the future. Hon. Chair, I've got about five or six letters addressed to the minister. This was about the first week in July, so I appreciate that the minister and his staff have not had the opportunity yet to respond.

First of all, do I understand there is a policy that before the ministry will allow the closing down of schools there must be consultation with the community involved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member has described many facets of the situation well. The genesis of the idea of building two schools somewhat larger and closing the third came out 

[ Page 6147 ]

of some discussions with the school board and with ministry staff about how we build more with fewer dollars. I have written to the school board and said that I'd be prepared to support the school district's plan for two larger schools and the closure of the other, but only if they can demonstrate community support for it. So I've said clearly to them: "Recognize that we don't have the money to rebuild or renovate everything. If there is community support for this plan, then okay, but not unless there is community support."

We have taken some action on the issue that your constituents are raising with you and with me, and I'll be conveying to those correspondents the same message that I've just delivered to this committee. I expect that without community approval, this will not go ahead; if there is community approval, it will.

P. Reitsma: The direct question was -- I'll just mention again, with the indulgence of the minister: before a school is closed down, does the proposal to close down the school have to go before the local community that is affected, or the community as a whole? I'm talking about district 69, for instance, which is Parksville-Qualicum, Coombs, Errington, Bowser, French Creek and Nanoose. Or does the closure of a school need some input, some communication with the area that affects that particular school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: They would have to consult with the area that is affected by the closure of the school.

P. Reitsma: We are two for two. I'm getting the answers that I was looking for, so that is indeed a good start.

Asking the minister to put himself in the shoes of the parents -- and indeed leave some room for growth when you put yourself in those shoes -- what factors, what determination, what possible suggestions from parents would help keep that particular school open? I'm suggesting areas such as the chemistry of the community that those children live in, particularly being rural, which is so different, of course, from the urban area.

Again, I put personal feelings in there because of my children. We are from a rural area; we have 20 acres. In fact, we raised donkeys; we raised goats; we have chickens, dogs, cats, geese. We had them all; a big garden too, like most everybody else has. It's not necessarily a totally different lifestyle, but it is a certain rural lifestyle, and the same type of children are at those schools. They may have a different view of certain aspects of life.

Before I pose the question. . . . In the middle seventies there was a small post office at the Coombs General Store, which is almost next to the school. I appreciate that this is not Education, although it is of educational value to see what a community can do. We combined our efforts and thoughts, and we went to Canada Post, asking them not to close that particular post office. I know it has nothing to do with Education -- except the educational process of arriving at a conclusion with the whole of the community's support.

I wonder, putting that into the context of the question that's just around the corner: would it help if the whole community of that particular area of the French Creek school would come together and make a presentation, either to the minister or through the school board, and give the reasons why it should stay open? Will the minister listen to those submissions?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope my previous answer was clear. I'm expecting the school board to do the consultation on this issue. Surely the right place for residents of the area to bring their concerns is to their locally elected representatives on the board that provides an education for their children.

P. Reitsma: I have one last question before I go into some of the capital ones. The minister has also received -- and I've got copies here of the Ministry of Education. . . . I'm talking about the school around the Winchelsea Estates in Lantzville. The funds of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training are being used for a school bus in that particular area known as the Winchelsea Estates in Lantzville, because there is not controlled crossing within the allowable four-kilometre distance from school to home.

There's lots of correspondence to the minister:

"With the construction of the new Nanaimo Parkway, another controlled crossing has been added to intersect the highway at Ware Road. The ministry has now decided that this is an appropriate route for children to walk and, starting this September, will no longer fund the bus.

"In order for our children, some as young as five years of age, to get to school, they will have to walk along more than two kilometres of deserted wooded roads with no sidewalks. This deserted stretch is intersected by a six-lane freeway plus an uncontrolled merge lane on each side, where traffic travels at speeds in excess of 80 kilometres per hour."

The parents and the school have sent letters to the minister, with copies to me:

"We implore you to investigate further and reverse your decision. After all, your government is responsible for installing the new parkway and must take responsibility for the consequences, both good and bad, resulting from that installation."

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is, of course, an issue of concern, particularly to parents whose children are involved in it. I thank the member for raising it.

I would say that I think we've got a good issue but probably the wrong forum. This is an issue to be resolved by the school board. The school board's budget for transportation has actually gone up significantly this year, by something like 9 percent. The school board hasn't asked for more routes or any buses, so it strikes me that it's a matter of internal allocation by the school board as it deals with transportation issues. I think that is the appropriate place for the issue to be resolved.

[5:00]

P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Chair. I suppose that part of the estimates is funding to school districts. The minister has just advised me that that is an internal configuration of the 

[ Page 6148 ]

school district, and that's part of estimates. I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but there are moneys being spent. If it has to be reallocated within the school district, then that's the advice the minister is giving, and I take that advice.

Could I get assurance from the minister that the letters from the parents being sent to the minister will be answered at an appropriately early time -- the beginning of July or the end of June?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Responses are being prepared now.

P. Reitsma: These are the last couple of questions on school district 69 capital projects. I'm certainly happy. . . . In fact, last year my colleague the critic and I went up to the school in Errington. That's the one where, unfortunately, an alarm system wasn't installed to warn when the level of sewage was inappropriate. As I understand it, it is the number one priority of school district 69. Incidentally, planning money for the project was announced. In 1993 it was reannounced. Could the minister please give us an update on the Errington school as well as the schools on Bennett Road? I understand that there's going to be a conversion of QSS, Qualicum secondary school. They're talking about converting the school into a middle school; that's QSS.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two projects are currently in the planning phase in district 69: Errington Elementary and the Qualicum area elementary. The district is working with the ministry and has agreed to use a one-plan, two-schools approach. Again, it's very welcome cooperation and good cost saving for taxpayers.

One of the things that is retarding the work on this slightly is the issue the member just raised with me. Before we can get an accurate sizing of the schools, we need to resolve the issue that your correspondents were raising with me and with you. Assuming that's resolved in a timely fashion and that we know whether they're going to be larger or smaller, we would anticipate that the planning work gets done in the fall and tenders get let in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year.

The other one you asked me about was the Qualicum area secondary and the conversion. That's a little more problematic; I'll be candid with you. The ministry is having intense discussions with the board about what is the most cost-effective alternative for dealing with some of the capacity issues at the secondary level.

P. Reitsma: Just as a side comment, certainly during my time as mayor of Parksville we had a good amount of cooperation with the school district in terms of working together on the computers and other things like that. I would assume that's the general philosophy of the minister anyway: to work with other governmental institutions.

Could the minister tell me about the Ballenas Secondary School? It is one of the top priorities, as well. I think they're asking for an addition, which originally was pegged at about $7 million or $8 million. Would the minister please give me an update on the addition to Ballenas Secondary?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's one of many projects that we're looking at for possible planning in the next fiscal year. It's not on the list this year for planning or construction.

P. Reitsma: I would just ask the minister to reconfirm that. . . . I know the board has requested it, but has it also received capital funding from the previous year's capital plans for a heating system upgrade at Parksville Elementary School, for the Parksville alternate school-based child care program and for an 84-passenger school bus in our area -- long overdue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: More good news for the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I'm sure he'll give full credit to the government for the news. Yes, the 84-passenger bus has been approved. For Ballenas Secondary, $352,000 has been approved for a heating and ventilation upgrade, and for Parksville alternate, $293,000 has been approved for child care spaces there, as well.

P. Reitsma: I'll bite my tongue, my cheek and all of those, and refrain from getting into the promises and giving credit and all those things. Although I do note, of course, that in many of the schools -- surprise, surprise -- I think the opening ceremonies have already been set for 1999 and the year 2000, which probably is just purely coincidental.

But be that as it may, turning to school district 68, which, of course, to a certain extent I share with my hon. colleague, the Speaker, I understand that the top priority was the. . . . I would just ask the minister to give me an update on the projects that were announced before the freeze. Of the ones that have been frozen, which ones are now unfrozen?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just in starting, the member began his comments here by saying that when all is said and done, more is said than done. I just want to inform him that this fall we expect to be opening, I think, 22 new schools around the province, which represent a total capital investment of some $208 million. Over the last five years we've invested over $1.5 billion -- I think the figure is approaching $2 billion -- in school construction. Lots has been done, and lots has been done in school district 68.

The projects that have been unfrozen and are either working through planning or construction this year are: Ada Janes Elementary, Cedar Junior Secondary, Frank J. Ney Elementary, Gabriola Elementary, Hammond Bay Elementary, John Barsby -- is in the secondary phase -- McGirr Elementary, Park Avenue Elementary, Pauline Haarer Elementary and Wellington Secondary.

P. Reitsma: I thank the minister for his answer. My last comment on this and then I've completed. . . . Again, I will make sure that. . . . In fact, I'll be talking to the school district regarding Lantzville. That's an extremely important and potentially devastating situation because of the kids, five years old and up, having to cross three lanes on either side, plus one leading up, with 7 or 8 seconds of light, which is really unacceptable.

The minister attempts to take credit for a lot of what has been done. I cannot start to convey the cynicism in terms of what has been said. I just remind the minister that so much was said before the election of last year. I don't want to regurgitate that, but the minister provided me with the opportunity. So much was said before the election; so little has come out of it after the election.

However, I do thank the minister for the answers. They will be conveyed at an early, appropriate time to the school districts. I will certainly monitor the problems with the Lantzville community because of the children and make sure that school district 69 will hold. . . . It is my understanding that a public meeting is required under the School Act 

[ Page 6149 ]

before the ministry will allow the closure of any school. I understand that public meetings must take place in order to hear the input from the community that will be affected.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just to be very clear on what I said, I said "public consultation." Now, I cannot personally conceive how that is done without public meetings, but the act says consultation.

R. Thorpe: I just have a. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: And now for a completely different part of the province.

R. Thorpe: Yeah, it's amazing. It's a completely different part of the province, but I heard you make reference to school district 68, so I'm going to make reference to school district 67. You would think it would be close, but what can we say? Who knows how the numbers work?

I'm going to be very, very brief. I think the minister has confirmed to me outside the estimates process that the freeze that was on both the Snowdon and the MacDonald schools in school district 67 has been lifted, and they are now part of a new planning process. I see the minister nodding his head in confirmation of that, so I'm not going to sit down; I'm just going to keep going here.

In that process, could the minister explain to me, or have staff explain to him, what is meant by the term "nominal capacity"?

[5:15]

R. Thorpe: In this revised approach to planning the construction of schools, is there a new term, or has this term always been involved in the process: efficiency scheduling?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It may be new to district 67. Other districts have been using it for some time. The goal is clear. The traditional secondary school day -- and this is an initiative that's aimed at secondary schools, I want to make that clear; we're not talking about elementary students. . . . We're saying that in the middle and secondary schools, if we can arrange scheduling so that instead of using the school from nine to three, we're using it from eight to four, we can get additional students into the same school and therefore build more schools with the money that we have.

We recently had a conference on efficiency scheduling to consider how school districts that have already done this accomplished it -- what problems they dealt with and overcame, and how it is working.

R. Thorpe: I, for one, am a member who understands that we do live in changing times. From time to time, we all have to change the way we do things. I can say that when I went to grade 10, I went on the afternoon shift and somebody went on the morning shift -- so as much as we change, maybe we're going back to where we were.

An Hon. Member: That's the problem.

R. Thorpe: We're not going back as far as you -- dad.

For the schools that are now going through this revamped planning process to face the tight financial situation that we're in, what is the length of the process time -- from when people start to when they can complete it, assuming, of course, that they're providing all of the information? In other words, my real question is: is this really a revised process to maximize the use of our dollars, or are we slowing down a process so that we don't have to start the construction of schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect 37 schools to begin construction sometime this fiscal year. I've been very explicit in this committee about which ones they are, and what quarter of the fiscal year we expect them to get construction underway in -- when we expect them to finish planning, get into tenders, get tenders done, get the contract awarded, get shovels in the ground and, from that date, anticipate completion schedules. So I've been quite explicit about it.

We have set out a huge challenge for ourselves and the school districts. We've said, coming out of the capital freeze and the capital project review, that we can build schools 15 percent cheaper on unit costs. That's a challenge, but I think we can do it. We can also do things like common plans for several schools. That's a challenge, but we can do it. We've said that we can reduce the space in schools by 10 percent -- looking at the service areas and reception areas -- without affecting instructional space, and we think we can do it. We've said that for extended days, we can really increase the capacity of a particular building without the morning and afternoon shifts, but simply by lengthening the day and getting more students into the same school -- and we can do it.

The planning for these, and the necessity of revisiting some of these, is real. Earlier in estimates, just this afternoon -- you weren't here -- we talked about two schools, I think it was in Surrey, that had actually been into working drawings, and we required them to go back and redo it. It cost us an extra $600,000 in the planning phase, but we're going to save $5 million in the building of the two schools. So it's real. Sometimes it's very frustrating, I recognize, for trustees and parents who have been looking at a time line; they want it done now.

I sometimes think that Ministers of Education should have a magic wand and go whoosh! -- there's a school. We can't do it that way. It's a long, slow process.

The two projects that you're talking about in district 67 are faced with the challenge of what we do around extended days for middle schools. This is a complex one, because we're actually working with our partners in school districts to talk about to what extent to do efficiency scheduling or extended days in middle schools, and how it's done. After that work gets done, then you figure out how big a school you have to build; then you can get the plans done and put the shovels in the ground. So actually, planning on these two is tied in to some of the conversation you and I had about efficiency scheduling and extended days.

R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister for his answer.

I'm very, very confident that our school district board and the senior management there are going to be able to come forward, working hand and hand with ministry staff, to overcome the problems and to make sure that there are positive solutions, because that's what the school district has been known for over the years.

[ Page 6150 ]

So assuming that -- which I'm very confident they are going to achieve -- where would these two schools stand on your list of priorities for granting funding so that they can move forward?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, let me say this: assuming -- and this is a large assumption -- that the work that you're confident can be completed is completed, and that we have the consensus that we're going to need from parents and teachers and trustees about how we're going to do extended days at middle schools, planning money has been allocated for this fiscal year for those projects. So we'd assume that sometime this fiscal year they'd get into the detailed work of planning. We have not tagged a specific fiscal year for project completion for either of them, but obviously they'd be considered in '98-99 and beyond.

R. Thorpe: In going through the exercise of overcoming the challenges -- which again I must state I'm confident our community will overcome. . . . I say that in the broadest sense of the word "community." What it sounds like to me from that answer, and I'd just like some clarification, is that after that stage it's pretty much a definite maybe.

In the total scheme of the province of British Columbia you must have a rating system based on need. Is that correct?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Okay. So based on that overall rating system of need, where do these two schools stand currently?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, I don't want to argue with the member about words. In some ways you've described the situation accurately. I'm simply not in a position to say at this point, just starting the second quarter of this fiscal year, what the construction priorities are going to be for the next fiscal year. We definitely need to look at where the enrolment pressures are and which buildings we think we could extend the life of or are uninhabitable, which we're going to have to replace, and which schools are going to burn down and require emergency help -- all that.

These are important projects to us, and I would rank them not in the very top -- I want to be very clear with you. I mean, I think my top priority's still going to have to be to attend to the very-high-growth districts that some of your colleagues, and some of mine, in the lower mainland are dealing with. Definitely there are enrollment pressures at them, which makes their case strong. The other thing, as we've talked about here, is that they are ahead of the pack in grappling with the issue of how you do extend a day at middle school, and that's to their credit. So while we'll say that, those are some of the factors that I'll be weighing as we look at '98, '99 and beyond.

R. Thorpe: I certainly don't want to get in any arguments on this subject. I just want to make sure that everyone, when they get Hansard at home, clearly understands that it's not going to happen next Tuesday because they get the work done on Monday. I think that it's important for people in the community to understand that this is a big process, and everyone has to work diligently in getting it through.

[5:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Those are some of the issues around extended days. I'll just say a couple of things here quickly. Every year we review our funding formula for how we allocate operating budgets, and the issue of additional costs for extended days is one of the issues that is on the table this year. There are very few schools that actually run on extended days, but as this initiative kicks in, we think in `98-99 and beyond, there'll be a rise in number. So we are looking at the funding formula to see if we should give additional resources to schools that are running on extended days.

R. Thorpe: I said "depending on the answer," hon. Chair. I know the minister has to give that answer, but let us remember when we go through efficiency scheduling we can't have two. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No. Well, efficiency is efficiency. We don't have a lot of places in the smaller schools, the less common areas, to go park 200 students because they have to wait for a bus to come later. So we're going to have to deal with those operational issues.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Without the approval of school district 67, but being a person that does take risks from time to time. . . . Since the minister has said that he knows this efficiency scheduling is a relatively new initiative, what I would suggest, on behalf of the students, the families and the educators of school district 67, is that because of our great record of success in the past, you should probably consider accelerating us and using us as a pilot project for the province. This will help achieve all of your goals much quicker. So I look forward to your considering that, and I thank you very much for your answers.

A. Sanders: I have a few questions about the cost-saving initiatives from the ministry that the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton has been talking about, and I'd like to do those before the dinner hour.

Specifically, we've been told that the cost-saving review initiatives will save $70 million, and the extended day is the one topic of discussion that has been discussed this afternoon. Many areas are very interested in this extended day. It is not a new concept, and in fact many of the school districts that I visited did have an extended day and have had at some schools for a number of years. If we're looking at the extended day in very general terms, is this initiative to be applied to any elementary schools, or is it primarily and totally one for secondary schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It will not be applied to any elementary schools.

A. Sanders: Again just for clarification on the middle schools, is there an initiative in place for middle schools?

[ Page 6151 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're unaware of any middle school right now that's running on extended days. As you heard from your colleague, we are exploring this concept with a number of school districts right now.

A. Sanders: The minister is aware that children on Hornby Island travel by bus and by ferry to school. In a similar situation, kids in the community of Wells travel a 250-kilometre round trip by bus to go to school in Quesnel. How do you propose that the extended day would work in these types of situations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Obviously scheduling for those students would have to take account of their travel schedule.

A. Sanders: I'd appreciate a typical scenario of a situation like this. My understanding, for kids in these kinds of circumstances, is that they get up significantly before other children would go to school and get home significantly after, just based on travel time alone. What would the day look like for these children in terms of a timetable?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly one of the challenges in doing extended-day or efficiency scheduling for students who would have to travel a long way or an extended time -- there are many, including some in my own riding -- would be to provide a block of courses within a restricted day that these students could have access to. I don't know how that would be. It might be front-end-loaded or back-end-loaded during the day, but trying to compress the day for them. Obviously those students. . . . At least, my view is that few of them would be on a day that would be longer than, say, six hours in school, even though the school might be open eight or nine.

A. Sanders: I'm trying as a parent to really look at whether it appears that government has thought this out. I have no problem looking at an extended day for a child living in a highly dense area in Vancouver, where they live five minutes from their school or can catch transportation that runs on a 15-minute schedule at any time of the day or night.

Most of the children I know these days have quite extensive extracurricular commitments, primarily not through the school anymore but more through the community, be it in rep soccer, basketball, swimming or whatever. Many of these activities require that these kids are on the road for quite an extended period of time before or after school just to start with. If you then look at the rural communities from which the minister and myself come, we'll often find parents that are our neighbours sitting in hockey arenas at 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning with those same kids, before they ever even get to school. I can think of an awful lot of rural areas where extended days are just not going to work.

When we're looking at a compressed day, and a child still goes to school for five hours of instructional time, and you're having an hour and a half or two hours of travel on either side in addition, to put them in a circumstance where they're having that many hours per day involved in the community or school experience because we have deemed that this is the way it should be. . . . I'm wondering if this is again that one-size-fits-all solution, and whether or not the minister is going to be willing to abandon the idea of extended days where it simply is not going to work in schools. I don't think there are going to be a lot of them, but there certainly will be some. Is the minister going to be flexible enough to abandon this principle in those areas where it is just inconceivable for children to exist in the circumstances this will provide?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the member for her thoughtful comments. The extended-day initiative is almost entirely targeted at high-growth areas, and largely urban areas. I was just asking staff if we could think of a project that would clearly affect the sort of situation that the member is describing. I'm not sure we can, although we acknowledge that in theory, at least, it might. . . .

My goal here is not to sacrifice common sense in what kids' lives are like in order to squeeze maximum efficiency out of our buildings. I do think that there are lots of opportunities for doing it, particularly when travel time is relatively short. I recognize that children lead very, very busy lives around school -- mine certainly do. But I do believe that we can accommodate some of those activities within and that in some ways the extended day provides students with more flexibility in how they handle some of their out-of-school activities.

A. Sanders: It's reassuring to hear that common sense will prevail. This is especially important, since all districts that were having capital expenditures reviewed were reviewed within the context of the extended day and the other initiatives. So I have not heard that it says that if you are in this area where this would create an impossible circumstance for a significant population of children that are hurt by a particular school being built, these initiatives would be looked at with a more realistic view of what the children's real life is. If that is in fact the case, I think that will give some communities quite a bit of reassurance that the ministry will not be using this as a wedge issue to prevent the construction of schools in areas where. . . .

Interjection.

A. Sanders: The minister wonders what I mean there. What I mean specifically is that if you were building a school in Quesnel that had a large number of kids coming from Wells that you had to fit into the criteria that were outlined as cost-saving initiatives, and it was impossible to do that with the children who populated that school, that could be used as an issue not to build the school and thereby to withhold the capital project. I think people need to know that that's not the case, and that for some areas there will be some realistic and sensible views from the ministry and the minister concerning this issue.

On extended days, my question to the minister is: if the extended days contravene the contracts of teachers, which they do in many districts, what has the ministry decided to do to help school boards overcome this problem?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure how much I want to deal with the wedges. Just let me say that I am going to require these reductions in scope, reductions in unit costs and extended days for increased operation wherever it makes sense. If I've got the Coquitlam school board agreeing to extended days and Surrey resisting, I'm going to very clearly say: "Hey, this is going to apply both places." If we're doing secondary schools, there is no reason I should accede to that sort of pressure and get wedged myself, so to speak.

A. Sanders: Rural versus urban.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Whatever. Rural versus urban -- I think it's appropriate even there. For instance, we have approved planning for an expansion of College Heights Senior Second-

[ Page 6152 ]

ary in Prince George, in the member for Prince George-Omineca's riding. I think extended days are possible there. The great majority of students at that school are from a very urban area with good transportation, and only a small number require school bus transportation. I think extended days could accommodate them. So I take the member's point. We're clearly not interested in applying a Coquitlam solution to the Okanagan or the Kootenays. That doesn't make sense.

The member asked about sorting out all the issues around extended days. I think the forum we had was good; we advanced the discussion quite a bit. We are going to be developing some further correspondence to focus more sharply on what are the issues and the barriers are that we need to overcome as we move towards extended days. One of those challenges is to make sure that everybody -- teachers, parents, school trustees, the whole community -- is committed to the same goal. I think if we share that common goal of getting as many kids as possible into appropriate facilities -- permanent facilities -- that will overcome a whole lot. There are, of course, contract negotiations that are going to be taking place -- restarting in the fall here -- around collective agreements for teachers. I would hope that many districts would continue the work they've already begun in talking with their own teachers about accommodating extended days. And as the member knows, in a significant number of districts, such accommodations have already been reached.

[5:45]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: My colleague is going: "No, no. . . ."

Hon. P. Ramsey: Your colleague is hungry. Move the motion, hon. member.

A. Sanders: I can tell. I would like to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

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