[ Page 6193 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers

G. Plant: I am delighted to welcome to Victoria and to the gallery friends from Park City, Utah: Robin Paxton-McGuire and her three kids, Cooper, Flynn and Kelly. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I have two sets of introductions that I'm pleased to make today. First of all, it's my very great pleasure to introduce to the House Gargee Ghosh, who's in the gallery today and is the winner of the 1997 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship. This scholarship is our government's highest scholastic award. It was established in 1971 to commemorate the Queen's visit during our centennial celebrations, and it supports British Columbia university graduates who undertake further studies in the Commonwealth. Gargee is a truly exceptional honours economics graduate from the University of Victoria. She'll pursue her economics studies at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. I can only assume she didn't make it into Cambridge, hon. Speaker -- it's a parochial comment. The two very worthy winners of minor Queen Elizabeth scholarships this year are Jeevan Deol, from Vancouver, and Jacqueline Chew, from Merritt. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating and welcoming Gargee Ghosh, who is accompanied today in the gallery by her mother and father, Lily and Ray.

Also, I'm pleased to introduce three guests who are visiting with us from Paris, France, today. Brigitte Delattre is head of communications for the National Trust for Historic Monuments and Sites for the government of France. Antoine Debré is the vice-president of the French Academy of Architecture, and Adrien Debré is Antoine's grandson. I know the House will want to make them all very welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today are four guests, who used to live on the mainland and have been in Parksville for a while. In fact, they're off next week to Australia for a year-long exchange program. Would the House please make welcome and give a nice send-off to Chuck and Theresa McNicholl and their two sons, Darcy and Duncan.

J. Sawicki: I would like to welcome two special guests to the gallery: Richard Hunt and his daughter Emily. I'm actually making this introduction on behalf of one of those wonderful people who keep us fed in the dining room, Betty Turko, because these guests are her son-in-law and her granddaughter. Richard Hunt, as we all know, is a world-renowned Kwakiutl artist, but I also understand that just recently he sponsored a golf tournament that raised $10,000 for Big Sisters and Big Brothers. Emily is seven years old, and I think she's well known to all of us because her Gran talks about her all the time. Please welcome them to the Legislature.

C. Hansen: I'd like to welcome a friend of many years, Odel Ramcharan, who's here from Calgary with his new bride, Sandra. They wisely chose Victoria for their honeymoon, and I hope the House will bid them congratulations and welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome four guests to the House today. With us are Don and Kay Midwinter, from Sidney, B.C. Visiting them are their friends from Winnipeg, Archie and Helen Orlikow. Archie's brother, David Orlikow, is a former NDP Member of Parliament. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased today to have in the gallery a friend of our family, Grace Palomar. Grace could be best described as a resident of the Kootenays, having in the last three years lived in Nelson, Cranbrook and Golden. I'd ask the House to make them welcome. I must say that over coffee this morning, Grace was passing on to me how proud she is of our Premier and the stand he's taken on behalf of all British Columbians.

Hon. L. Boone: Today is a very important day in this Legislature. I think everybody, including all members on the opposite side of the House, would join me in wishing two very important people in this Legislature a happy birthday: the Minister of Education, my colleague, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would the House please join me in wishing them a happy birthday.

Oral Questions

PREVENTIVE SECURITY AT
FRASER REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, these issues were first brought to the attention of police officers back in the fall of 1995. They investigated these issues thoroughly then. There was insufficient evidence to proceed on many of these allegations. Subsequently, information has gone to police on many occasions. They have done more investigations, and no charges have resulted.

With respect to IPSO, yes, I have read the memo that the hon. member is talking about. Yes, it indicates that this program was successful to a certain extent. Yes, there is a drug problem. But at the end of the day, it is important that we remember that to investigate criminal activity is the function of the police in this province, not of the guards of a correctional facility. As a result, there were problems, and as a result of those problems, this program was terminated.

There has been a full-time liaison police officer with the correctional facility that the hon. member is talking about. The correctional facility is attempting to retool the program with the assistance of the police, so that the police have the lead role in dealing with these issues with the assistance of the staff.

M. de Jong: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General's explanation is entirely inconsistent with the documentation that we have received from his ministry. Let me quote from one of those documents. The director:

"I have concluded that I can no longer allow a continuation of the abuse that has been directed toward the primary IPSO 

[ Page 6194 ]

officers. Their families, their health and their well-being are far more important than continuing with a program that is ultimately going to result in someone being hurt. It is for this reason that we have decided to end the program."

It was great as long as it was visitors, as long as it was inmates, but when it involved employees of the Attorney General, the Attorney General ministry took a rather different view.

In light of what Mr. Leskun has done, in light of what he and his family have lived through -- hell these last two years -- will the Attorney General stand in this House today and assure Mr. Leskun and his colleagues that there will be no reprisals against this man, who did nothing but his job?

[2:15]

However, from the same memo, if I could read: "The police continue to investigate some of these incidents of harassment, damage and threats. I am still hopeful that the responsible party(ies) can be identified." It's important for us to remember that to investigate crimes is the responsibility of the police.

There is a full-time police liaison officer with the corrections facility. Allan Anderson, of the investigation, inspections and standards office -- independent of Corrections -- has been investigating this matter for some time, subsequent to the receipt by me of some letters from the spouses of some of the guards who were concerned that they were being harassed. That investigation continues, and Mr. Anderson will expand the scope of that investigation to report to me fully. That report will be made public.

M. de Jong: Mr. Leskun was scrupulous in following procedure. He wrote to the regional people alerting them of his concerns and his findings. He wrote to the Attorney General's deputy, alerting her of his findings and the evidence that he had. He wrote to the Attorney General, alerting him of the findings and the evidence of criminality that he had. Ultimately, when none of those people responded, he wrote to the Premier. When none of those people took any action, he had no choice but to make public these very disturbing findings of evidence of criminality within that corrections facility.

I don't think the Attorney General heard the question. Will he stand in this House today, look Mr. Leskun and his colleagues in the eye and say: "I will not take any reprisals against you for doing your job in protecting inmates and civilians and guards within that facility"?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is a learned member of the profession of law. He knows that there is the rule of law in this province. The Attorney General is not above the law. There are rules respecting employment; there are rules respecting investigations. There is law respecting investigations by police. All of those matters will be dealt with. If there is any criminal activity that's going on, it's the obligation of the police to investigate.

When I received this correspondence from the individual that the hon. member is naming, I passed it on to the deputy minister so that it could passed on to Corrections and to Mr. Anderson. It is important for everyone to recognize that if this individual has that information, he should pass it on to the police. It is the obligation of the police to investigate those matters, and I have passed that information on through my deputy minister to the appropriate sources.

G. Plant: In July 1995 this IPSO program determined that there were at least two corrections officials involved in drug trafficking at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. Now, instead of launching an immediate inquiry, the NDP in fact chose to allow these officers to resign and in one case, apparently, to receive a $20,000 severance payment. This is completely unacceptable.

Can the Attorney General tell us now: why did no one in his government launch an immediate inquiry into these events in 1995 as soon as it became apparent that guards were trafficking in drugs in his prison?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am amazed that a member as learned in law as the hon. member that just spoke is would say that the RCMP and the police should not be allowed to do their job, that we should have public inquiries at the slightest mention of drugs. It's important that police be allowed to do their job. I said very clearly that in 1995 the RCMP conducted a very thorough and lengthy investigation. They have continued those investigations from time to time. They found insufficient evidence to proceed to any charges. They are free to deal with those issues. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, when your questions were being posed, I believe you were given the courtesy of silence. I would ask that the same be extended to the minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The police are always free to deal with the issues as they see fit. I am certain that all of this information is in the hands of police, and I'm sure they will do their job.

G. Plant: This is about how this government chooses to manage what goes on inside its prisons. Nothing that the Attorney General has said so far today gives me any confidence that he understands the magnitude of this problem.

In fact, in the media reports this morning, the Attorney General was saying that he was unaware of the concerns regarding drug trafficking and harassment of IPSO officers at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. That is completely impossible because, as the Attorney General knows, on April 30 Mr. Leskun wrote to him telling him all about that problem. To date, Mr. Leskun has not even had the courtesy of a response from the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell this House why he has ignored the repeated warnings by Mr. Leskun, the chief investigator, as said to him in this letter almost three months ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps the hon. member didn't hear what I said. Allan Anderson, the independent officer of the investigation, inspections and standards branch, is investigating this matter -- sometime since February, after I received letters from the spouses of the guards who were harassed. As a result of that investigation, the scope of the investigation would be expanded, obviously, to take into account any allegations that had been made consequently. It's important that we recognize the independence of Mr. Anderson. We wait for that investigation, and we'll deal with the issue.

[ Page 6195 ]

On the other hand, at the same time the RCMP and the other police forces are free to deal with these issues as they see fit, as the evidence comes forward for them to deal with.

G. Plant: Well, the public record is pretty clear. There's been attempt after attempt made by these honourable guards to bring this serious problem to the attention of the government not just in respect of whether there needs to be police investigations but whether this government needs to revise its approach to the management of its prison system.

I do not say this lightly when I say today that it is up to the Attorney General to do the right thing, to do it now and to in fact immediately call a full and open public inquiry, where all people may testify without reprisal into the events at the correctional centre. I ask the Attorney General if he will do that now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have full confidence in our police forces in British Columbia to deal with any criminal activity in any nook and cranny of British Columbia, including the corrections facilities. If any members of the opposition have any evidence, they can present it to the police. If they find that difficult to do, they can present it to me, and I'll forward that on to the police.

G. Campbell: The concern I have is that the Attorney General does not seem to understand the human impacts of the lack of response from this government. Is it too much to ask the Attorney General to write a letter to someone who has been threatened, whose family has been threatened and whose career has been threatened, and say: "Yes, I have received your complaint, and I'm dealing with it"?

On June 12, because there had been no response from this Attorney General -- there had been no commitment from this government to protect the families, people and employees concerned -- Mr. Leskun wrote to the Premier. I want to point out that in writing to the Premier, that is the last step he could possibly take according to the "Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees." He'd written to the regional personnel officer, the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General, and now he was writing to the Premier. On June 12 he wrote to the Premier.

Can the Attorney General tell me this: what action did the Premier take to be sure that these families were told that they were going to be safe and secure, and to be sure that the activities that were taking place, which were clearly alleged to be illegal, were going to be stopped in the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm amazed. Even after the information that the hon. members have been given, they persist in asking the same question.

Let me repeat again. I wrote to two of the spouses of the guards who wrote to me; I wrote to them. There is a letter dated June 26 that indicates that Don Demers, the assistant deputy minister responsible for corrections, may have met with them. It also indicates that Allan Anderson is looking into the matter. I have said that Allan Anderson, the investigation, inspections and standards director, is looking into this matter. I have complete confidence in him to investigate this matter and report back to me. As I have done with the previous reports from him, that report would be made public. If there's any further action that the hon. members can persuade me to take, I will do so. It's important for us to let Mr. Anderson do the work.

It's also important to once again express confidence in our police forces. There is a full-time police liaison officer who works with this corrections facility, who I have full faith in. I'm sure that if he has any difficulties, he'd be dealing with his chiefs. I'll be hearing from them if they need any resources to deal with this issue.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The red light went on while the minister was answering, members. I would suggest that you don't complain about time, if indeed it expires in the process of question period.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: I understand, before calling the minister, that I have a statement coming from two members. Okanagan-Vernon, would you wish to begin? I think it more appropriate that the member read the statement than that I do.

A. Sanders: Thank you for undertaking to read my statement for me. That would have been very nice.

I rise, pursuant to section 10(1) of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, to withdraw from debating Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, on the basis that I may be in a real or perceived conflict of interest. The possible conflict of interest arises from the fact that I'm a licensed medical practitioner in B.C. Parts of this bill deal with the medical profession.

In the circumstances, the prudent course is to withdraw from second reading debate of this bill. I expect to participate in committee debate on the provisions of the bill which would not directly regulate the medical profession.

S. Hawkins: I too rise, pursuant to section 10(1) of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, to withdraw from debate on Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, on the basis that I may be in a real or perceived conflict of interest. That possible conflict of interest arises from the fact that my husband is a licensed medical practitioner in B.C., and parts of this bill deal with the medical profession.

I understand there are legal proceedings underway with respect to whether there is a lawfully appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner, and in the circumstances, hon. Speaker, the prudent course is to withdraw from second reading debate on this bill. I expect to participate in committee debate on the provisions of the bill which do not directly relate to the medical profession.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I now recognize the Minister of Health, on second reading.

[ Page 6196 ]

MEDICARE PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

[2:30]

These changes deal with different aspects of protecting medicare and build on the steps this government took with Bill 54 in 1995. That legislation, the Medicare Protection Act, protects patients from paying extra charges for medicare services in our province, by banning extra billing for medical services. It says clearly that every British Columbian should have equal access to medicare services, regardless of income.

Our amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will ensure that all residents of the province are enrolled in the Medical Services Plan for the purposes of receiving medicare benefits. This will ensure that medicare coverage in British Columbia is truly universal and that no individual is denied the opportunity to participate.

This bill includes two vital amendments in relation to extra billing. Bill 54, the Medicare Protection Act, bans extra billing for medicare services. With this legislation, we are closing a couple of potential loopholes. The first change is a clarification that an extra-billing charge imposed by any person on behalf of the medicare practitioner constitutes a charge by the medical practitioner who has provided the service.

The second change clarifies that no additional fees can be imposed on a spouse, parent or other person acting on behalf of a beneficiary receiving a service, which might be done in an effort to avoid allegations that the charge was imposed on the beneficiary personally. While these loopholes may offer only a remote opportunity for abuse, it is imperative that any possible means to extra-bill will be eliminated.

In cases where a practitioner has broken the law through such acts as extra-billing, the only two penalties available to the commission were either (1) to cancel the enrolment of the practitioner or (2) to force the practitioner to seek payment directly from patients, who would in turn be reimbursed by the Medical Services Plan. While the commission, fortunately, is not faced with this situation frequently, experience has shown that neither of these penalties is particularly effective or appropriate in many cases.

As the result of the amendments in this bill, such practitioners may now be placed on reduced payment schedules for a period of time. This will offer the commission much more flexibility to determine a penalty appropriate to the circumstances. More importantly, in those cases where there would otherwise be a need to cancel the enrolment of the practitioner, allowing the individual to continue to practise, albeit at a reduced payment schedule, this will ensure that access to services is not impeded and make it clear that there will be real penalties for doctors who break the law.

Turning to the vital issue of physician supply, this bill contains some key measures. They have been developed with the active participation and support of the British Columbia Medical Association and adopted by the Medical Services Commission. One part of physician supply concerns the authority to develop different billing arrangements for medical practitioners during the early years of their practice. This policy is about encouraging doctors to practise in those areas of the province that can most benefit from their expertise, and ensuring better management of the health care budget.

The commission presently has in place a form of grid that, when applied to existing payment schedules, means an individual who has practised for less than five years may be paid at less than 100 percent of the payment schedules if the types of services provided by the practitioner are already widely available in his or her community.

For example, new doctors who work in areas where there is a shortage of physicians will be paid 100 percent of the fee-for-service payment schedule, and new physicians who practise in areas that are oversupplied with doctors will receive 50 percent of the fee-for-service payments. We are paying more to have doctors where British Columbians need them, and less where we don't.

These physician supply measures developed by the British Columbia Medical Association have been in place for some time. With these legislative amendments, there is no question over the authority of the commission to apply these differentiated payment schedules.

With the introduction of this legislation, after the age of 75 years medical practitioners may not provide physician services through the Medical Services Plan. This measure will increase the opportunities for younger physicians. To protect medicare services throughout B.C., we are providing the possibility of an exemption to this measure in the areas of the province where retirement of a physician at the age of 75 might reasonably be expected to have an adverse impact on access by residents to necessary services. The time in practice for that physician may be extended by the Medical Services Commission.

From a more technical perspective, there are other amendments that I will only comment on briefly. In the matter of appeals by practitioners from orders made by the Medical Services Commission, amendments made by this bill will require that the appeals proceed directly to the British Columbia Supreme Court. At present appeals are taken to the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board. Extensive experience has shown that this is neither cost-efficient nor cost-effective, because virtually every procedural step of the appeal board is taken to the Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. As a result of this change, matters will be concluded much more quickly and at much less cost to practitioners, the commission and taxpayers.

In connection with audit activities by the Medical Services Plan, there will now be authority for an audit of claims for payment by practitioners where the payment has been made by MSP on behalf of an agency such as the Insurance Corporation of B.C. or the Workers Compensation Board. Negotiated arrangements currently exist with these two agencies for the processing of claims, resulting in considerable efficiency and cost savings. The extension of audit powers to these claims will correspondingly increase those efficiencies and savings, because ICBC and WCB could only carry out such audit activities at considerable expense.

In relation to premium payment, there has been some streamlining of the collection process with these amendments. When premium payments are in arrears, the Medical Services 

[ Page 6197 ]

Commission is authorized to certify the amount of the arrears and serve that certificate on the person in default. If the person named in the certificate does not pay the arrears and does not dispute the amount once 30 days have elapsed, the commission is authorized to file the certificate in any court registry in British Columbia. Once filed in this manner, the certificate has the status of a court judgment, and proceedings may be commenced to recover the amount that is owing. If the individual objects at a later date, there is a provision for an appeal to the court to be filed within 45 days.

These amendments are very important to the delivery of medical and health care services in the province. British Columbians have the best medicare legislation in Canada. Through these amendments, we're ensuring that the key principles of medicare are upheld. We are eliminating unnecessary duplication and streamlining many of our processes, which will result in a more cost-efficient and cost-effective system. I'm pleased to be able to present these amendments to the House today.

L. Reid: I'm please to rise in debate this afternoon. I believe that there is an important issue at stake here around the future of medicare in this country, not just in British Columbia. I certainly go on record on behalf of the official opposition as being absolutely in support of the Medical Services Plan in British Columbia and providing medicare under the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act, which look at portability, which look at accessibility. . . . It looks at the fact that health care in this province has always been publicly administered. There are some issues around portability and the system remaining affordable for people at stake here.

I appreciate the minister's comments around striking some efficiencies, but we always have to be cognizant of why individuals don't pay their health care premiums. I'm not convinced they don't pay because they have a great deal of money at their disposal and they choose not to. I'm convinced that a lot of those individuals simply don't have the money. If this issue today is about universality, we need to come back -- many, many times in this debate and certainly in committee -- to address that notion. We do believe, on this side of the House, that the issue is universality. It is accessibility. It is portability.

This bill -- if the issues are not clarified around the time limit for enrolment and de-enrolment -- will impact negatively on British Columbians who travel outside this province. They will not be given reciprocity when it comes to health care, because this government will have limited and restricted the portability aspects of the Canada Health Act. That's an issue, and that is an issue that we will debate today, in principle, in second reading debate on this bill. That's the principle which permeates this legislation and is questioned by this legislation.

I'm not comfortable with the question. This is the most important program that government can offer, no question about that. This minister goes a little bit beyond striking efficiencies; she raises the question about the future of the program in the minds of many. That certainly was a discussion shared by members on this side of the House. We have some concerns about this government's willingness to step outside of the federal legislation. They've shown that in the past with their social services legislation. They are again prepared to do it on this legislation.

Again, I come back to the question of the time limit around enrolling and de-enrolling in the health plan. What is standard in Canada today is three months. I will need to hear from this minister, in her closing remarks, that three months will be in place in British Columbia. For her to stand beyond that is, again, pitting this province against the other provinces in this country and ensuring that individuals, when they travel, will have difficulty accessing health care in terms of portability. That's a concern that I, on behalf of the official opposition, am putting on the table this afternoon.

The minister makes much mention that the individual's right to access health care should not be based on their ability to pay. This amendment act is only about the ability to pay, in terms of those particular sections. If people are comfortable with that notion, now is the time to stand up and be counted on that. The official opposition is not comfortable with that aspect of this bill. We would never wish to see anyone in this country turned away from any medical facility, based on the inability to pay.

What this minister just said in her remarks is that they will be found to be in arrears, and those dollars will be collected from them. What she didn't say was whether or not they would be turned away. If that is her intention, that will not receive the support of the official opposition. We are, today, standing in support of the Canada Health Act -- of the position around delivering affordable, accessible, universal health care.

That has always been our position in the official opposition, and I speak from experience, having served this party, this caucus, as Health critic for close to five years. There is sufficient evidence on the record that we will stand for people who need to access the health care system. We will not deny them access, as the minister suggested, based on their ability to pay. That is not a position of this Liberal opposition.

Our concern, to distil it down, is that this bill allows people to be left out of the Canada Health Act, out of the Medical Services Commission, out of the Medical Services Plan here in British Columbia. That's a significant issue. If we believe it's universal, we can't be hypocritical and suggest that people can be left out, as this minister has done.

I too am impressed with striking efficiencies around how this plan is implemented and how it's managed, but not to the extent that we would compromise the principles on which this plan was founded. Those are the principles that the Liberal opposition stands behind.

Again, I come back to the question of waiting periods. Should the minister, in her closing remarks, tell us that the waiting period is standard across the country -- that it will be three months around enrolment or de-enrolment -- that will have the support of this opposition. If the decision is taken to separate this province from the other nine provinces and three territories in this land and have British Columbians treated differently than other Canadians, that is an issue that I would wish this minister to address. I look forward to her closing remarks, hon. Speaker, because I do believe there are some issues around that.

Certainly the minister touched on the issues around physician supply, very difficult issues. There is a concern that the opinions of interns and student physicians -- medical students -- in this province have not been incorporated into the position of the B.C. Medical Association. That is an issue they will need to deal with very effectively and, hopefully, very soon. We, as the consumers of the health care system, very much desire that the best minds, the finest minds, the most current research, the latest technology are brought into play, if it is our illness or the illness of a member of our family -- or frankly, the illness of a member of our constituency. We want 

[ Page 6198 ]

those people to have access to the best possible care. To disenfranchise the newest medical students in the system is a concern.

[2:45]

I can tell you that during my tours of this province as Health critic, there were significant issues around a lack of obstetrical care, a lack of psychiatric care, a lack of general surgeon care in this province. This doesn't address those specialty questions. This is a gross measure that will slow down physician supply, but it won't specify physician supply. The formula that the B.C. Medical Association arrives at, in concert with this government, must be incredibly sophisticated to answer the questions of people who live in the north.

There is more than one tier of health care in this province today. We have all accepted that reality. The care that we receive at St. Paul's Hospital in the lower mainland or Vancouver Hospital is dramatically different than the care that we receive in Burns Lake and Fort St. John. That's the reality. So unless we're prepared to ensure that we look at refining this very gross measure in terms of physician supply, we will have done nothing to improve that situation for individuals who live outside the lower mainland. I'm very firm on that point. It's a significant issue for the majority of the outlying areas of this province.

This bill recognizes that it's a problem, but it doesn't solve the problem. What it says is that there will be formula arrived at. The success of that formula will be determined by the sensitivity of the individuals at the table. I would hope that this minister will ensure that interns and medical students are part of that discussion, because the quality of health care we receive and put in place for the next generation is entirely dependent on the quality and calibre of graduates we have today.

For me, it's an economic question. I don't wish to have that very superb expertise leave this province. I want people who have the latest in training and technology and who are the most current in areas of research to be welcomed to practise in this province. I think it's a very fine balance. I think it's a very delicate balancing act that the minister will have to engage in with the British Columbia Medical Association. I wish her well, because I think it's important that this province respect new graduates in the areas of medicine that I mentioned: obstetrics, general surgery and psychiatry. Those are very difficult subspecialties in terms of providing that service in other parts of the province. Again, this bill doesn't address the refinement that will be required to succeed in that area.

I trust that the formula that is put in place recognizes the very grave concerns that members on this side of the House have regarding the health care available to people who live outside the lower mainland or live outside southern Vancouver Island, because implementation is always the key. The general principle of this bill is supported by members of the official opposition. We absolutely support the intention of this bill. Where we have difficulties will be around the implementation, because it's always something that's gone off the rails when it comes to this government around health care. It's a concern to me, and I know that the concern is shared by other members on this side of the House.

Today people tend to look at issues around chiropractic and around physiotherapy as being health care. I know the members opposite agree. So when this minister stands up and says, "Not a cent shall change hands" we know that's not true. People today pay $10 a visit to receive physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment in this province, so people are participating in that. If we want to redefine what is covered by the Medical Services Plan or what is partially covered, let's have that discussion. We know today that those services are partially covered by the Medical Services Plan. So we have some hypocrisy in the comments made opposite, and we need to have some clarification around that.

I made mention earlier of the minister's comment about equal access to health care, regardless of income. That is the point I'm making around chiropractic and physiotherapy. We expect those people to pay, regardless of income, and we need to be clear about how we define health care for the average British Columbian. They have lots of difficulty with what they see to be the selectivity -- the fact that this minister appears to be arbitrary on some of those questions; that they would not make any changes to health care. Well, yes, they did around physiotherapy and chiropractic. They increased the user fee from $7.50 to $10 -- an increase of $2.50 a visit. Is that significant for many British Columbians? No question.

I referenced earlier that we do have the reality today that more than single-tier health care exists in British Columbia. Nowhere is that clearer than in the workers compensation system. I have raised this issue with the Minister of Health, and she referenced the WCB in her remarks. She knows full well that the situation of the Workers Compensation Board is around having a non-medical person adjudicate someone's access to health care, which is absolutely contrary to the Canada Health Act. I trust that this minister will remedy that situation, because it needs attention. What it says is that if you or I are injured, we would see a medical practitioner. We would seek out that service. If we happen to be employees in this province who are managed by the workers compensation system, someone else would decide if we had access to that health care, and that person's background would not be medical. I have serious concerns about that. I have made my concerns known to the minister, and I trust that she will respond to that, too, in her closing remarks.

There are some issues I could leave with this minister that I would ask her to respond to in her closing comments, and failing that, she will know that these comments will come again during the committee stage of the bill: some commitment around the formula that will be in place around physician supply and some commitment that it will be a fairly sophisticated formula that recognizes the needs of subspecialties and patients who require that service around this province. Let me be really clear on that. The people who require subspecialty care outside the lower mainland need to know that that care will be there.

Regulating the number of general practitioners in this province is one aspect of a comprehensive physician supply plan. I don't believe that the British Columbia Medical Association, in concert with this government, has arrived at the ultimate plan. I trust that where we are today is an evolutionary plan and that we will indeed arrive at something that we are prepared to revisit at least every year or every second year, because the needs of this province change that quickly. Put-

[ Page 6199 ]

ting a plan in place that's there for the next ten years would no more recognize the inequities today than it would in any other decade. There has to be some consistency, there has to be some timeliness, and there has to be some commitment -- and, I trust, some political will -- demonstrated by this minister when it comes to ensuring that those kinds of decisions are taken.

I have some concerns around the waiting period, and I trust the minister will respond to that. Will the waiting period in British Columbia around enrolling and de-enrolling from the Medical Services Plan continue to be three months? Is there any truth to the speculation that that number will now become six months? Members on this side of the House need the answer to that question.

As to the reference the minister made earlier about people electing not to participate, I need the answer to the question: will those individuals be turned away from any medical facility in this province? Is this minister prepared to compromise on universality? That question needs to be answered for us this afternoon.

I am and, as I said, the official opposition is prepared to support this bill in principle. But we need to be absolutely clear, and this minister needs to share her thoughts with us this afternoon around the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act. Will this continue to be publicly administered? Will this plan continue to be accessible to every single British Columbian, regardless of ability to pay? Will we stand today united around the concept of universality? Will we ensure that British Columbians can travel this province and receive health care when they travel outside of this province? Is there portability? Is there reciprocity on behalf of the other provinces and territories in this country under the Canada Health Act? And is the system going to continue to be affordable?

Those are issues that the minister has put on the table by bringing forward Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, and we trust that this minister will respond to our concerns in committee stage. We are supporting the bill, and we ask for the minister's comments.

V. Anderson: I stand up to make some comments regarding the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997. I can't remember exactly how many medicare protection acts we've had in the last few years. As I listened to the minister make her comments today, the words that ran through my mind, which I heard from the community that I have been visiting, were: "Change, change, change. When will we ever have some stability?"

We had a vision in Canada, which had been known around the world, for a universal medical system beyond that which anyone else was aware of, and it was the envy of all the world. In our system we had some principles: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration. In our own province, this was equally true.

I came from Saskatchewan and had the opportunity go through the strike when the beginning of this kind of comprehensive legislation became part of our society. I saw the difficulty that people had in working through uncontrolled, independent, ad hoc medical systems to one where we collectively as a community came together. The clients, the physicians, the workers in the hospitals and in the communities worked together to develop a comprehensive social system in medicine whereby we could care for each other in a way that we could be proud of and rely upon. That built up over the years until, like many other places in Canada, we in B.C. had a system of which we could be proud.

It's interesting that the Seaton commission of a number of years ago, which was set up to review our system and to ask how it could be changed and improved, came out with the general conclusion that we had one of the best systems in the world. There were suggestions of how it could be modified and improved so that it could change with changing times. It was one of the comments of the Seaton report that it wasn't necessarily more money that we needed. Rather, it was a consistent planning process whereby the change that took place in our society, the growth in our community, the difference in aging of our population, the awareness of new mechanisms of science and technology -- all of these could become a part of our ongoing system.

[3:00]

I talk with those who have been working in the remodelled and remodelled-again health systems in the province, whether it's a community service system, the regional service system or whatever. What I discover from them is that just as they begin to feel they've adapted to a change and maybe have got the kinks out of it and are ready to make it work, then another change comes down upon them. That's a major concern, because that's the context in which we look at this particular bill. It's the context in which we hear that there is change again. There is uncertainty again about what is coming down upon us.

Most of the people in our community already thought that the medicare system was for everybody in the province, but now we have a bill brought before us saying: "No, that isn't the case." Now we want to change it so that it will be case.

But what we found with this bill, as we find with so many of the bills that have been coming to the Legislature in this particular session -- and I might say unlike any other session that we've had in this Legislature since I've been here, since '91 -- every one of these bills is brought forth on the pretence of: how much money can the government make and get from the people to balance their budget?

Every one of these bills costs the average citizen in B.C. more and more and more. For the average citizen in B.C., more than 50 percent of their income goes to government. This has to stop somewhere down the line; it has to be reversed. This bill, which is pretending to improve our medical care system, is really primarily about collecting more money.

It used to be the tenet of the CCF and the early years of the NDP that services were to be provided to the people according to their ability to pay. That has taken on a different meaning in these times. It used to be that if you didn't have the money, through no fault of your own, you wouldn't be deprived of the services necessary for your lifestyle. It's becoming more and more that if you don't have the money, you will be deprived of those services. We find that what services are available to you depends on where you live in the province. The services that used to be available in almost every community are no longer available.

[ Page 6200 ]

I grew up in and served in small communities in the Prairies. There we initially had Red Cross hospitals, and then we had small community hospitals. They dealt not only with the care of the individual who had need of medical care, but they dealt with the care of the health of the total community. Those health care professionals and workers not only worked within the health care facility, but they were a part of community planning; they were a part of community activities. They worked with the children, the young people in the community; they worked with the senior citizens in the community. They helped to develop facilities that were available to each and every one, and gave us not only healthy persons but healthy communities, which are fundamental to healthy persons.

One of the outcomes of that kind of process, no doubt, was a process called Healthy Communities, which for a time this government sponsored and supported, but which they have ceased to support in the manner and fashion in which they once did. What they have done is say in their regionalization and in their community council development: "This belongs to the local community. We no longer as a provincial government have an overall concern or responsibility." It's this that concerns our people.

When we take this Medicare Protection Amendment Act. . . . They talk about suggesting that there are some people who will not be able to enrol in the medical care system. When they talk about some people who will themselves de-enrol from the medical care system, then we begin to wonder what is being said.

It's like so many of the other acts. Often I've turned to the final chapters of a book, to understand what the book might be about. If it looked interesting in the final chapters, I'd go back and try to look at the detail within it.

So when we go back again to the last section of this bill, section 14, section 51(2), we find that it's amended by the following paragraphs: ". . . (c.1) prescribing the period for the purposes of section 7.1; (c.2) establishing the manner and time for the making of payments of premiums; (c.3) prescribing the rate for the purposes of section 8.1; (c.4) prescribing the form of certificate. . .; (h.1) prescribing bodies for purposes of definition. . . ." Hon. Speaker, the guts of the act aren't here. They're going to be prescribed after we have put out the headings.

We find again and again that this is what is happening with this government. Regulations that used to be stipulated in an act so that you understood what they were -- not in total detail, but at least in essence and in principle -- were there for you to examine and comment upon. Now the aim of this government is to say, again and again: "This will be prescribed by the minister, by order-in-council, by whoever." It's impossible to tell the real intent or purpose or outcome of the act, because all of that is left to a person's imagination. Unfortunately, when our imagination plays with the kinds of regulations and bureaucracy that have developed over these last six years, then we are rightfully concerned.

I was interested in a comment the minister made a few moments ago as she introduced the act, when she commented about a person who would be able to appeal: a practitioner and owner of a diagnostic facility or a representative of a professional corporation on whom the order was made. I heard her say -- and I'm sure I heard her say properly -- that they must appeal the order to the Supreme Court. But the bill itself says that they may appeal the order to the Supreme Court. So I'm left with the question: do we deal with what the bill is saying, or do we deal with what the minister said when she introduced the bill? That's a question we'll have to ask her in committee stage: which of those wordings does she really mean to have in place?

We are concerned on this side of the House -- and in our presentations always have been -- about the universality, the accessibility, the comprehensiveness, the portability and the public administration of our medicare system. When we're talking about public administration of our medicare system, we're talking about administration by the members of the public. We're not talking about administration by those who are hired and paid by the government -- by the bureaucracy. When the changes were first being mooted. . . .

We have some of the best hospitals in the province, because citizens of the community have come together to build those hospitals, to manage those hospitals and to provide very accessible programs. As we worked into one of the recent system changes, those hospital boards were done away with. In fact, they were done away with by edicts of the minister on many occasions, where she simply said: "I'll put in an administrator, because I don't like the way you're doing it." Not only has she done it in one case, she has done it in countless cases, and the bills that we have before us give her even more authority to undertake that kind of process.

In the earlier stage there was a promise by a previous minister that there would be elected regional and local boards -- community councils -- and that these were appointed only in the first round so that they could get organized. Then every three years there would be elections, and the community could choose the people to administer their local community activities. But in recent times the change has come. The minister has taken away the opportunity for local boards to be elected; the minister has taken away the opportunity for local people to be involved. There are people involved, but they're the ones selected, nominated and controlled by the minister. In the acts that have come before us during this session, there's built in, time and time again, for each and every ministry. . . . Not only is it the Health ministry, it's also in Attorney General ministry legislation that even things like the Legal Services Society board can be done away with and an administrator put in at the whim of the Attorney General.

So we see a centralization of power, and we see a limitation of the opportunity of local people in the community to participate. And as a result of this, we see a threat to what we believe is a fundamental right that we have earned in Canada over many years: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.

Like so many of these acts that come before us, there are some good principles within in it, but the principles are jeopardized by the regulations which come after the acts have been completed and have gone into the back room.

We see here some things that are worthy of discussion. We see that there is a concern under this act that some British Columbians, either by design or by default, will end up without medical coverage. They will end up without medical coverage in British Columbia or if they travel across Canada or around the world, and that is a fundamental error in what is being presented to us at this point.

It is important for us to review very carefully what is put before us. There is a concern in our free society that men and women who train themselves for a job or a profession should have the freedom to go and work where they like, and they should be able to take their skills and share them with people in other communities. There are many who are concerned that in some areas of our community we are developing a philoso-

[ Page 6201 ]

phy that that freedom of movement is not possible, because in a medicare system you cannot provide services without being part of the system; and if you're part of the system, then you don't necessarily have freedom to live, practise or work where you would like to be. These are principles that have to be examined very carefully. The rationale for these changes have to be re-examined, because they have implications. For this particular group of people, we might say that's fine, but as you extend it to others, it has a danger.

So there are some concerns about a set of changes, which is another set of ongoing changes that will be changed again next spring when we come back here -- if this government is still around at that time. They are concerned that everyone in the province should have the same opportunities in health care as everyone else. There are some concerns that we will discuss in committee stage, because it's simply not fair for us to have this uncertainty on behalf of our people.

[3:15]

As others have noted, B.C. Liberals are absolutely committed to a one-tier medical system that is affordable, accessible, universal and portable. In our estimation, those are the four pillars that sustain the medical system that we have in British Columbia. If people withdraw from the program or have their enrolment cancelled, is the program still universal? That is the nub of our concern. If an individual, whether foolishly or otherwise, withdraws or has enrolment cancelled, is there an alternative system for that individual or individuals to access? No, there isn't. There isn't, because we have concluded as a society that we will have a universal medical care system and that that universal medical care system will serve all of our citizens. We are concerned that with this bill we will be creating a class of citizens or a group of individuals who will not have ready access to health care in British Columbia -- nor, as others have noted, will these individuals have access to medical care when travelling in other provinces in Canada.

I think it should be briefly noted, as well, that we are a compassionate, humane society. If people are suffering in this society, the society itself and indeed its physicians will undoubtedly want to alleviate that suffering. For this reason, we're very concerned with the principle and precedent of some citizens losing -- for whatever reason -- their right to the protection of a universal medical care system.

As you know, the job of government is to find an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities in a society. It is also the job of government to find an appropriate balance between principle and practicality. I'm concerned, and I know from the comments of others on this side of the House that we are concerned that the vital principle of universality for our medical care system may be compromised in the pursuit of efficiencies.

So that very briefly outlines the concern that I have with respect to Bill 21. Again, while we will be supporting Bill 21 at second reading, I hope that my concerns and the concerns of my colleagues have been heard by the minister and that an appropriate response can be found.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the questions raised by the opposition during second reading comments. I would just say this: many of the concerns raised can be addressed in committee stage. There are reasoned explanations, and I think the concerns will disappear as the bill is explained. This bill is complex in some ways because the amendments amend the original Medicare Protection Act, but I consider it my obligation at committee stage to explain how the two meld and how the concerns of the opposition can be addressed.

There are some very important aspects of this bill, and I do appreciate the opposition's commitment to support this bill. There are very serious concerns around making sure that communities, particularly in rural and remote areas, do have, as best as possible, a good physician supply. It's a very difficult issue to manage under any circumstances. Our work with the B.C. Medical Association has addressed many of those very thorny issues -- which are not partisan issues, by any means. They're issues of ensuring that one can get medicare services regardless of where one lives.

The concern around the universality. . . . This bill actually does protect universality, and in fact -- this is in no way a criticism; the whole bill has to be read with the current act -- guarantees universality for everyone regardless of whether they have paid their premiums or not. In fact, that is meeting the test of the Canada Health Act. What the bill does allow us to do is collect premiums from those who are in arrears. That ability was never there before.

So in some ways it's very technical -- not complex, but technical. I look forward to actually addressing these concerns at committee stage. On that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection 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. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 48.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATIONS ACT
(second reading)

The Emergency Communications Corporations Act is part of this government's commitment to work in partnership with local governments and emergency agencies to improve public safety in all regions of British Columbia. The act enables the creation of special purpose corporations to provide integrated emergency communications services in British Columbia. The creation of these corporations will improve police, fire and ambulance service response and will provide greater public safety at an affordable cost.

The emergency communications users -- such as municipalities, regional districts and provincial and federal agencies -- will be able to join together in a non-profit, private corporation specifically designed to meet local needs. The boards of these corporations will be appointed by the agencies that use 

[ Page 6202 ]

the system and pay the bills. This will ensure that the services are economical and effective and that they reflect the needs of the participating agencies. The province will be a direct partner in these corporations. We will pay our share, provide support and participate whenever our colleagues in local government and the federal government wish to work together to enhance emergency communications.

We believe that these corporations should be subject to the normal requirements for governments to be open and accountable. The legislation includes financial reporting and freedom-of-information provisions that come up to the normal government standard. Where a consolidation of dispatch and other services occurs, employees are naturally concerned about their jobs and futures. Therefore we have included provisions to protect pensions and to equip the Labour Relations Board to expedite decisions about union representation and agreements.

This legislation is very timely because it will provide the vehicle for implementing a new emergency communications system and dispatch facility in southwestern British Columbia. About a year ago I announced my support for an ambitious project to establish a single emergency communications system for emergency services in the region bounded by Boston Bar, Pemberton, Sechelt and the U.S. border -- a huge area with more than half the population of the province. The system will be capable of serving 6,000 emergency response personnel working in this area, and includes a consolidated dispatch operation. Geologists have been telling us that the lower mainland could be hit by a major earthquake at any time. Having an emergency facility that can remain operational during a major disaster will mean the saving of countless lives.

The partners in this project have worked hard to make it a viable proposal. The legislation will help ensure that those efforts will result in a new emergency operations centre. I, along with my colleague the Minister of Health, the mayor of Vancouver and the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, made a major announcement last Monday about this exciting project. It is an example of what we can do in partnerships made possible by this legislation.

I'm pleased to speak to this bill. It will enable the development of integrated communications systems and dispatch centres whenever our partners see fit, allowing police, fire and ambulance services to respond quickly not only in day-to-day situations but also when major emergencies or disasters happen. I look forward to its speedy passage. That concludes my remarks, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I believe that you moved second reading in the beginning, so we're in order.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak on Bill 48, a bill that the opposition will be supporting.

I guess I should say that this is a tremendously ambitious project and one that will also be a tremendous success if it realizes the better part of its ambitions. I look forward to hearing from the government and holding the government to account, I suppose, for its progress on the continued development of this idea -- an idea which, I might say, is an idea the Leader of the Opposition had back in the early days when he was mayor. What we are seeing here now is something that I think can be fairly described as the end of the beginning of a project and now a part of a very significant step forward.

I want to say that while this is a project with tremendous potential, there are a number of challenges and potential pitfalls. I want to identify them, as much as anything, by way of giving the Attorney General a sense of issues that I think he probably knows are out there, but to communicate to him, I suppose, the fact that I know they're out there. And there are things that he and all of the participants in this project are going to have to keep in mind.

The first is that in creating a project like this, which will serve an area as large as the area contemplated -- as the Attorney General says, virtually the whole of the mainland of southwestern British Columbia -- it is going to be important for all the players and participants in this project to ensure that they recognize and accommodate and give legitimate voice to the concerns of all of the communities within southwestern British Columbia -- because there are, in the area that is contemplated for this project, some small towns and villages as well as the major cities of Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond and others.

It's going to be important that the people who are the project principals do what they can as the project is developed to ensure that all of the people and the service providers in the smaller communities within this larger area have their views heard, accommodated and recognized, so that the service, when it is finally up and running, is responsive to the needs of not only the people in the larger metropolitan centres but also the people within the larger area who happen to live in smaller communities. There's always a risk in projects like this that the big guys will take over and that it will tend to be a project that develops only in their image, and I sincerely hope that that's not the case here. I urge the Attorney General to bear that consideration in mind as he moves forward. I think that in fact it's the case now that Surrey, one of the larger communities -- if not almost the largest now -- is not yet on board with this project. So there is clearly work to be done here.

The second concern that's been brought to my attention is a concern that arises every time you talk about integrating a number of different services into one service delivery system. That is to ensure that the people who deliver that system, that service, are people who have the requisite training to respond to all of the types of situations that can arise, so that you have people who are going to be on the receiving end of the emergency telephone communications able to, in an intelligent, informed and experienced way, respond to issues that arise, not simply with respect to policing but also with respect to fire, paramedic services -- a whole range of different kinds of services. I think it's going to be important to ensure that the people who are the front-line service delivery people in this thing, when it finally gets up and running, have all of the necessary training. It may in fact be necessary that some of them have medical background to be sure that they can respond to those kinds of issues as well as the other issues that will be brought to their attention.

[3:30]

[ Page 6203 ]

to locating the emergency operations and communications centre in places other than Vancouver. I hope that Vancouver, over time, turns out to have been exactly the right choice -- and we'll see if that's so.

There are probably other issues and other challenges that need to be overcome, but what we're doing here is creating an enabling tool, a vehicle through which this worthwhile project can be developed. I think that for many people, the fact that we are now at this stage, this important stage where we can create this corporate vehicle. . . . It's a very good day. It's a good day that we are now here taking this next significant step down the road towards constructing a truly integrated, truly effective, efficient and responsive emergency communications service across the whole of southwestern British Columbia. For those reasons, I will be pleased to support this bill. Those are my comments.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That concludes second reading debate. I move that Bill 48 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 25.

FISH PROTECTION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 25; J. Doyle in the chair.

On section 5 (continued).

C. Clark: I'm pleased to start this debate again today. Where we left off yesterday, as I'm sure the Chair will recall, I offered an amendment providing the government the opportunity not just to look at future water licences but to provide for a review of existing water licences, and particularly focusing on the largest water licences that are held in British Columbia. If accepted, I think that that would have certainly contributed to the public confidence that this government is indeed sincere about protecting fish.

Before it was ruled out of order, the minister rejected my amendment. I suppose the way to start the debate today would really be to express my regret that the government has refused to even consider the amendment. It would have certainly meant something. It would have been a meaningful change to the legislation, and it would have been a big change in the way we manage our fisheries and fish habitat in British Columbia.

I'll start today, I guess, exactly where we left off, which is to express my regret that the minister has rejected the amendment, because I think that, of anything. . . . Certainly on the opposition side we did consider offering a whole range of amendments to this legislation. In the end, we settled on offering just this one amendment, which would require a review of past water licences and a multi-stakeholder process to do that, a fixed time line to do that and that water use plans be the outcome of that process. We settled on offering that amendment because we believed that that was by far the most important omission in this legislation.

It would be very difficult to convince anyone that the government is serious about protecting fish and fish habitat if it is unwilling to provide a clear legislative framework to look at major water licences that have been issued in the past. We know that there is a systemic problem in the water branch of the ministry, where they have consistently -- well, maybe not consistently -- failed in the past to live up to their duty to ensure that water licensees are living up to the conditions of their licences and, worse than that, where they have failed to even attach conditions to many of those licences in the past. That's a situation that needs urgently to be remedied. The remedy for that should be provided for in legislation so that we can ensure that what the government says is going to happen really does happen.

I really do want to express my regret that the government has refused to consider these amendments. I think they'd be important. I think that they would go a long way to convincing a lot of people that the government is telling the truth about what it intends to do here. Without the amendments being accepted, I suspect that there will indeed be a lot of suspicion that the government isn't nearly as serious as it claims to be about protecting fish in British Columbia.

The Chair: Hon. member, if the Chair could have your attention. . . . Would the hon. member take her seat, please. The Chair would like to bring to your attention that the amendment as proposed was ruled out of order the last time we discussed this bill.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was aware of that.

Section 5 says that the "regional water manager may (a) consider impact on fish and fish habitat, and (b) include conditions respecting fish and fish habitat in the licence, approval or amendment." I'm interested in the fact, given our discussion last night, that this is permissive language. I know that the amendment was ruled out of order, but even when it comes to future water licences -- not past water licences, future water licences -- the language remains permissive, rather than saying that the water manager must consider fish impacts or that the water manager must include conditions respecting fish. I would expect that it could be a fairly broad and still very flexible tool for the water manager -- just to say that there must be conditions respecting fish.

According to Greg McDade's report, which was commissioned by the government on the accidental draining of a whole lake up near Squamish, we know that only 14 percent of the water licences that were issued in British Columbia contained a condition to respect the environment. I would argue that that's not nearly enough. I remain concerned that this legislation won't address even the future conditions for fish in the water licensing procedure, given that the language remains permissive. Perhaps I'll sit down and ask the minister if she can comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: The permissive nature of the language is designed so that the water manager has discretion on the issues of general streams. So we're talking generally about streams around the province as opposed to those that might receive a designation as sensitive. In the case of the sensitive stream, the "may" will be a "must." In the case of general streams, it is discretionary so that we don't have a situation arising where there are new conditions put in place on every single stream in the province for anyone who might apply for a water licence. That, as the member might know, given the number of applications that come in on an annual basis to our water branch, would create a significant backlog of applications and require more onerous regulation on every applicant regardless of whether or not there was a need for that level of scrutiny to apply on that stream.

[ Page 6204 ]

So the "may" is discretionary to allow the water manager to use his or her discretion in terms of examining carefully the issues for that particular stream. Certainly I have confidence that water managers will be able to use that tool adequately to address issues on any stream where a water licence will be granted.

C. Clark: I do recognize that the 15 waterways that are listed would automatically require that the water manager consider fish impacts. But, of course, that's only 15 waterways out of I don't know how many in British Columbia -- probably thousands.

My question really is that with the permissive language, where it says that the water manager may consider fish impacts, it is my understanding that that's currently also the process -- that a water manager may consider fish impacts. A water manager may, or the water comptroller may, attach environmental conditions respecting fish just as they did in the 1950s on the Cheakamus. Now, of course, we know that the water manager didn't actually live up to his responsibilities to meet that order and to put that order in place at all. Nonetheless, that power has always existed. I wonder if the minister could tell us just how this legislation will change the framework in which the water manager works.

[3:45]

The key difference in terms of how this will work differently than it has in the past is that the discretion that the member makes reference to was discretion granted as a part of our policy as a government. We now have a legislative authority via this act to suggest that a water manager has the discretion and that discretion flows both ways: may and must. That gives the water manager, then, the legislative authority to act.

C. Clark: I'll just ask the minister to clarify, because I didn't fully understand her answer, although I know she was trying to put it in such a way that I would understand. The water-licensing manager currently has the power to include fish values in his or her considerations when issuing a water licence. I believe that's correct, and I'll ask the minister to correct me if I'm wrong. Under the new framework that power will continue to exist, but the only difference will be that it's contained in legislation as opposed to being contained in a policy. Maybe the minister could tell me if that's the only difference and if that's what she was trying to convey to me a minute ago.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is not a power that water managers had under the Water Act in the past. This legislation will give them the legislative authority to act on a policy that's been in place. So that policy has always. . . . We -- users -- have had an ability to be able to question the authority of a water manager in making any designation on behalf of fish. Clearly, with a legislative mandate, the water manager now has the legal authority to do so.

C. Clark: I would like to leave this topic, but I would like to be clear on this issue before we do. The water comptroller has attached conditions to water licences in the past that were intended to protect fish. So I can only assume that he had the power to do that in the past and that in our current legislative framework he continues to have that power. It might not be contained in legislation, but it's certainly something that he or she is allowed to do.

That's the source of my confusion here. I think I hear the minister saying that the water comptroller did not have that power in the past. If that's the case, perhaps the way to resolve my confusion is if she could tell me how it was that the water comptroller in the past has been able to attach conditions respecting water flows -- to ensure that fish values are protected -- on water licences that have been issued as far back as the fifties.

Hon. C. McGregor: The water comptroller has always had the ability to attach conditions. What this legislation makes clear is that those conditions can now be specifically related to fish. Before, there was no legislative authority under the Water Act to consider fish.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

C. Clark: I have a number of questions with respect to section 6. My first one is around the issue of criteria that might be used to determine whether a stream is sensitive. The criteria are not contained in the legislation at all, and it would seem to me that there should be a level of proof established in the legislation to give it some strength, and that failure to do that really weakens the effect of the legislation and its ability to protect fish and fish habitat.

I would suggest that in the legislation, there should be a level of proof established so that everyone knows what the standard will be for designation as a sensitive stream -- so that groups who are interested in ensuring that a stream is designated sensitive can meet that level, or so that people who might be undertaking development or some other activity that could potentially affect a stream would be aware of the standard there, as well. It would seem to me that that would be a real way to strengthen the legislation; the legislation really suffers from a lack of a level of proof being included in it. So I ask the minister for her comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 6(2) indicates that the regulation will designate a sensitive stream when its "sustainability is at risk because of inadequate flow of water within the stream or degradation of fish habitat." That clearly lays out the criteria through which a stream becomes designated as sensitive.

C. Clark: I would suggest that the legislation would be stronger if there were standards included. What I'm suggesting is that the wording of the legislation is very broad and a little too vague and could certainly be strengthened by clearer wording. In addition, in section 6(2) it says that only the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- cabinet -- can make these designations as sensitive streams. That is a fairly high level of decision-making there. A discussion would have to go on for a long time, I would suspect, and would have to reach a fairly high level before it would ever get to cabinet and then be approved by cabinet. What I'm pointing out to the minister here is that by making it the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council 

[ Page 6205 ]

that has to decide and make the determination of what will be a sensitive stream, she has set a very, very high standard and, I would suspect, a very difficult standard to meet in order to get a sensitive stream designation put in place. I ask for her comments about that as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The issue of which stream should be designated sensitive is one that we must take very seriously, because it does put a higher level of demands on users of that water resource in terms of water licensing and measures that might need to be taken related to protecting the fish stocks and the habitat in that particular river. We must be very careful in how we make decisions. To give cabinet the authority to determine what those sensitive streams should be gives credibility to the seriousness that we place on our responsibilities around such designations. Also, the issues related to mitigation and compensation are very important to multiple users of water resources. In particular, the agricultural community expressed some concern that they need to understand clearly what procedures will be put in place around designation.

So we're trying to proceed very carefully here. There are a number of stakeholder groups that don't question our goal of protecting fish and fish habitat but that want us to be as sensitive as possible to the multiple users of the resource.

C. Clark: I recognize that there is a high standard of proof, and I recognize the reasons for the minister deciding to put in place a very high standard for the designation of sensitive streams. I simply want to point out at this stage that because of the level at which the decision is required to be made, it will be very difficult for streams to be designated as sensitive. Again, if the point of the legislation is to make it tough for sensitive streams to be designated and streams to be protected, that's one issue. But if the point of the legislation is, as the minister says, to make it much easier to protect fish, I wouldn't suggest that this is going to go a long way toward doing that. I think it would be overstating the case enormously to suggest that this is going to be a really big step forward, because the level at which that decision is made will be difficult for anyone to reach.

I notice, too, that there doesn't appear to be any avenue for public input as these decisions are made. The reason I'm concerned about that is because when decisions are made behind closed doors, as they almost always are, unless there is an established method of consultation included in the legislation, any decision is vulnerable to a successful lobby from whatever side may happen to have the ear of a particular minister or cabinet. I would suggest that it would strengthen the legislation a great deal to make it more transparent -- to give the public access to that decision-making process so that everyone has an idea of who's where on the issue and who's got whose ear. I think public policy always benefits from more transparency and more consultation. I would draw the minister's attention to that and to this section of the legislation, because I don't think either of those things are particularly well provided for in the legislation. The minister may have some specific reason for having excluded that avenue for public input, so I'll ask her if she could perhaps comment.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to start by saying that it's important that we act responsibly in how we regulate this issue, because many British Columbians have a concern with overregulation. I'm sure the member has heard those comments herself in talking to constituent groups around the province. So whenever we're developing new legislation, we need to carefully consider and achieve the right balance between protection. . . . In this case, that's obviously a key goal; our purpose is to protect fish and fish habitat. But we also need to do that in a way that's responsive, as I suggested earlier, to a variety of stakeholder interests in the water resource of British Columbia. So we're trying to do the responsible thing in terms of how we manage sensitive streams.

Once a designation has been made, significant resources will be applied to those streams, and that puts an obligation on the Crown to deliver on mechanisms that will enhance and improve not only habitat but stocks. So obviously we have to manage that carefully, as well.

[4:00]

The member says -- and I agree with her -- that it's always a good idea to involve the public in naming those particular streams or rivers. I would certainly agree that that's an important thing to include, and I want to assure the member that we have every intention to do so. We are developing a process currently through which the public will be able to nominate rivers and streams that they believe should be in receipt of a special designation.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's comments. I'm not simply interested in the issue of how protected rivers are named; I'm thinking about the sensitive-stream designation and the cabinet process through which that decision might be made.

It appears in the legislation that when cabinet is considering giving a sensitive-stream designation, there isn't any process to make that decision transparent to the public. I'm not thinking about just nominating people who might want to nominate a stream; I'm also thinking about the other interest groups that perhaps might have some other interest that might be affected by the nomination of a stream.

What I'm getting at here is trying to ensure that all the interest groups will be heard in this process and that each of them will know what the other is saying. All too frequently governments. . . . And it's not just this government; this is a problem endemic to almost any government. If there isn't an open and transparent process, sometimes some voices are heard more loudly than others.

I would suggest that in this section of the legislation, where it deals with the cabinet's ability to make a decision and apply a sensitive-stream designation, there very clearly needs to be some avenue, some process by which the public can ensure that their voice is heard and that their views are considered in the process, not just in the designation of the streams, but also if their interests might be affected by the designation.

So I'll ask the minister if she could comment more specifically on that aspect of the legislation.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

[ Page 6206 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As a member of this cabinet, I can assure the member that we always listen carefully to and consider the opinions that are given and the information that is given to us by a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including those who are not necessarily actively involved in the fishery. Before cabinet makes any decisions, they carefully weigh all of the information they are given from all sources of the public.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister has a process of consultation that she follows in cabinet, I wonder if it's the Municipal Affairs style of consultation or if it's the Minister of Labour style of consultation.

I would make the suggestion, which I hope the minister will consider constructive, that if it is not in the legislation, the regulations should certainly include an outline, a framework, for some kind of a process to ensure that this sensitive-stream designation -- and we discussed earlier, as well, the protected river designation -- has a firm framework by which the public can make its voice heard and so that we can ensure that there is input from the public. Right now how consultation may or may not occur, especially when there's no legislative requirement for it to happen, is certainly open to question. So I make that suggestion to the minister and hope she will consider that it's constructive.

I notice, too, that in section 6(3)(c) it says that the removal of the designation can be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council if it is deemed to be in the public interest. I wonder if the minister could tell us how the legislation will define the public interest.

The Chair: Shall section 6 pass?

C. Clark: Perhaps the minister didn't hear my question; I know there was a lot of discussion going on in the chamber.

Section 6(3)(c) notes that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may repeal a regulation if it considers that the removal is in the public interest. I'm interested to know if the minister intends to define the public interest and define those terms in the regulations when they're drawn up.

Hon. C. McGregor: No, we will not be defining the public interest. It is the job of government to determine the public interest in the context of a decision that needs to be made.

C. Clark: I suspect the minister believes that her interests might best be served by keeping this legislation as vague as possible, allowing the government as much flexibility as possible and ensuring that the legislation is as weak as possible. That may serve her interests better than strengthening it in some way. So I'll leave that with the minister, as well. I certainly think that the legislation would benefit from defining the public interest in this case, and she may want to consider that when she draws up the regulations.

We also have in this section some suggestion, I think, that there will be some overlap with DFO in getting the authorization for a water licence, given that fish is currently a federal responsibility -- although I know that they're a shared responsibility with the province. Maybe the minister could tell us if her ministry has an opinion about whether this legislation might require an applicant to get a second licence, which I suspect isn't something that would be intended by the legislation but might be a consequence nonetheless. So I will ask the minister to comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have had a legal opinion that our act actually complements the legislation that DFO operates under; it's not in conflict. Our clause is meant to be preventive in nature, whereas DFO's regulation more or less reacts to a situation once it has happened.

Again, I will remind the member of the conversation we had yesterday in regards to our ongoing work with the federal government and trying to ensure that we mesh together the level of service and regulation that we're doing with our government and the federal government so that we can make sure that there is as little overlap and duplication as possible.

C. Clark: So is the minister convinced, then, or does she have an opinion from DFO, that they will not require a second water licence from that level of government once -- or if -- this legislation is passed?

Hon. C. McGregor: Only the province has the ability to issue water licences. It's not a matter over which DFO has authority.

D. Symons: Just a question, if I can refer back to section 6(3), that was asked a moment ago, because I had some problems with it also. I guess I wasn't reassured by the minister's answer.

If we look at section 6(2), it says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate a stream as a sensitive stream under this section if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers that the designation will contribute to the protection of a population of fish whose sustainability is at risk because of inadequate flow of water within the stream or degradation of fish habitat."

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may repeal a regulation under subsection (2)" -- which I just read -- "if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers that (a) the sustainability of the protected fish population is no longer at risk."

Now this seems, in a sense, to be ahead of the fact. You've got a plan in place, but you don't know whether it's going to work yet. You hope it will. So it seems that you're jumping the gun a little bit by allowing that in there. Until the (a) part. . . . I think when you've got (a) in place -- "the sustainability of the protected fish population is no longer at risk" -- then you can go ahead and say: "Let's remove it." But in (b) you're indicating that we can do that ahead of time. Then we come to something even worse in part (c): ". . . removal of the designation is in the public interest." Nowhere in there does it say that there will be any mitigation for that risk that we have to the fish population. It seems to be a total abrogation of what the whole of section 2 was setting up -- that if there's a risk, we want to protect the stream against that risk. Here in the (c) part you're saying: "Well, there may be some other considerations where we really don't care about the fish."

[ Page 6207 ]

I wonder if the minister might explain what I feel is a bit of a contradiction in putting (c) in there. It seems to be an escape hatch to get away from dealing with the issue of the fish being at risk.

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, I think it's important to note that the reason that is there is to provide a mechanism through which streams can be removed from the list. In the case of public interest. . . . I might advise the member that it's probably a fairly rare situation that might occur. But clearly, we have to provide the opportunity for government to consider issues that are clearly in the public interest. We don't at this time know what those might be, but those will arise from time to time, and we need the ability as a government to be responsive to the public interest. I'm sure that the member opposite would agree that that's an important thing for government to do.

In terms of subsection (b), the recovery plan, obviously it would require a great deal of evaluation and assessment. It's not something that just immediately. . . . It's not something that one automatically removes it from designation as soon as the recovery plan is in place. I would agree with the member that until such time as there is clearly some evidence that the recovery plan is well under way, that fish stocks are well-protected again and habitat is restored, that mechanism would not be used.

J. Dalton: My colleague down the way, who's also on his feet -- and I believe my friend behind me will be on his feet. . . . I know, sometimes we need eyes in the backs of our heads.

The minister has two responsibilities, among others, or two main ones: one is parks and the other is environment. I think it would be fair to say that this is more of an environment bill than it is a parks bill. The first question I'd like to ask the minister dealing with section 6, and probably section 7 as well, but let's put them together. . . . She made an announcement recently in my riding -- in fact it was at Brothers Creek -- that she considered that Brothers Creek may in fact become a sensitive stream within the context of section 6. Was that the purpose of her photo op that day? I believe the Premier was there, as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes reference to an announcement we made around the urban salmon habitat program. We had announced some restoration funds that were going into a community group that has done some very significant work around Brothers Creek. I would certainly suggest to the member that that group may well wish to nominate Brothers Creek to be considered for a sensitive stream designation. Again, it would need to meet the criteria outlined in section 6(2).

J. Dalton: Let's stay on the North Shore for a moment because the minister's other principal role is parks. As she well knows, Cypress Park is still an ongoing issue on the North Shore, and many of the streams that West Vancouver enjoys have their headwaters in Cypress Park. Does the minister see any potential conflict in her two capacities -- one of parks. . . ? She and her officials have to make some rulings on Cypress very soon. Does she see any potential conflict between that role and this Fish Protection Act, which in fact has. . . . As I say, many of the streams such as Cypress Creek itself, Nelson Creek, Montizambart Creek, Lawson Creek, Brothers Creek, McDonald Creek. . . . I could go on and on. Most of these creeks are in fact sourced in Cypress or very close to it. Does the minister see any difficulty or conflict between what's going on up at the top of Hollyburn Ridge and what may be taking place in the mouths of many of these creeks in West Vancouver?

[4:15]

J. Dalton: Just a few moments ago, in response to the critic's question about another aspect of section 6, the minister responded that there are issues of protection of fish -- which is true in this bill -- and also the interests of other stakeholders. It might very well be argued that one of the potential stakeholders -- and this fits within my question about Cypress -- is the operator of Cypress Bowl Recreations, given that one of the outstanding issues which still has to be resolved dealing with Cypress Bowl is the question of sewer and water hookup with the West Vancouver municipality.

Would there not potentially be an impact on sensitive streams, such as Brothers Creek -- if in fact that is so designated -- or Cypress Creek or others? Would there not be a potential difficulty if West Vancouver in fact refuses the sewer and water hookup? We know from public meetings and discussion with the ministry's officials that they have in mind alternative sources. One of them is to truck the sewage off the mountain and the other is they believe they have groundwater in other sources at the top of Cypress for snow-making and other water uses. Would it not be true that some of the creeks that are sourced in Cypress -- if in fact the alternative water source has to be implemented -- could in fact be impacted by the activities in Cypress, which I think run contrary to at least the spirit, if not the actual stated intention, of sections 6 and 7 of this bill?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member certainly points out the many complexities of managing multiple users and multiple regulatory frameworks. In fact, the member asks questions about the hypothetical nature of Cypress Creek being designated as a sensitive stream. That matter would have to be settled first, and then the hypothetical situation of how a licensee would apply for a water licence. That is covered under the Water Act. I would certainly be happy to provide an opportunity to discuss with the member outside of this bill how that process works -- but just generally to know that upstream and downstream impacts are considered as a result of the water-licensing process.

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain to me how you arrive at the designation of a sensitive stream? Is it the width of the stream, or is it the fact that there may be some fish within that stream?

The Chair: Member, I would ask you to keep your questions relevant to the section.

Hon. C. McGregor: I answered that question earlier. It's covered under the definitions section.

J. Wilson: I don't see anything in here under definitions that defined any particular fish. This includes all fish, I would assume. This bill has really got a lot of flaws in it. If we accept 

[ Page 6208 ]

the fact that if a stream has fish in it that may have absolutely no value to anything except perhaps some aspects of wildlife, are we going to protect a whole water system because it's full of suckers or squawfish? Are we going to worry about the water flow in there? I don't think the minister has considered the main killers of fish in the interior of this province. The fact is that millions of fish die each year because of winter kill.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Does the minister of Employment and Investment have a problem here, or is he interested in this?

Interjection.

J. Wilson: I am not talking about major rivers; I am referring to sensitive streams.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

J. Wilson: Sensitive streams usually have collecting bodies on them, which are known as lakes or ponds. The largest percentage of fish collect in these areas, and each winter many of those fish will die because they run out of oxygen. The other thing that is a major killer of fish on these sensitive streams is drought. It has nothing to do with logging extraction or any industry; it is to do with lack of rainfall. They dry up and the fish disappear, but they come back. They've been doing it for a million years.

I don't see anything in here that defines what fish we're protecting and whether we're going to shut down an entire valley because it has a few squawfish or suckers or shiners in the system. Trout would be different; they have a commercial value. People can go out; we can sell a few fishing licences. But if you've got a lot of garbage fish out there, they are not part of anything that anyone would desire, other than perhaps the odd mink would stop for a meal, but they don't even eat those if they can find something better. So it looks to me like it's a way of creating more bureaucracy, more government jobs, etc. The major rivers are a completely different story. I thought I would bring this to the minister's attention. It was very poorly thought out before it was put together.

J. van Dongen: I have two questions for the minister on section 6(8) with respect to the term "compensation measures," which can be applied in addition to mitigated measures where there is a proposal which would have an adverse impact. From reading the section, I would assume that compensation measures could be either in cash or in kind -- in kind meaning that someone could do some rehabilitative work somewhere else on another site. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, in terms of compensation measures, this section means in kind. It does not make reference to cash.

J. van Dongen: Would those conditions be written up as a condition of the licence that would be issued to implement the proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

C. Clark: I have just a few more questions with respect to section 6. It is my understanding -- and I'll ask the minister to correct me if I'm wrong -- that we are the only jurisdiction that grants water licences in perpetuity. I'm not aware of any other jurisdiction, at least in North America, that does that. I wonder if the minister gave any consideration in the preparation of this bill to requiring -- at least as part of future licences -- that they be reviewed on a regular basis or automatically withdrawn.

I also note that in a recent survey of water licences on the Fraser, I believe the ministry was unable to locate about 30 percent of the owners of those licences. There are 41,000 or 42,000 licences held in the province, and the ministry may or may not be able to locate where the licences are. But in many cases, it appears that it isn't able to locate the owners of those licences. I wonder if the ministry could tell us if they did give any consideration to changing the perpetual nature of water licences. And if not, why not?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm told by staff that there are many jurisdictions that offer water licences in the same way that we do. We believe that Alberta, in fact, is an example of another jurisdiction that engages in the issuing of water licences in the same manner that we do. I point out to the member that one of the chief reasons for not wanting to go to an automatic -- must be renewed or reviewed every five years or ten years or whatever -- is security of tenure. It's very important for water users to have a long-term security for tenure.

C. Clark: I understand that. I think, though, that in Alberta they do have a review process, so that while the water licence might. . . .

The Chair: Member, your discussion is totally irrelevant to the section, and I would like you to explain why you feel that it is relevant to the "sensitive stream" section.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm interested in finding out if the sensitive-stream designation, which is issued as part of a water licence. . . . When we talk about water licences, this would be the natural place for a use-it-or-lose-it policy, which would be a major change in the government's water licensing to be included in the legislation, so I'm interested in finding out from the minister why it wasn't included in this section.

The second half of my question relates to section 6(10). First, I'd like to correct the minister's comments. The use-it-or-lose-it policy isn't something that they do in Alberta, but when they do issue them in perpetuity they have an automatic process for review, I believe, which isn't something that's included in this legislation.

The Chair: Hon. member, I will remind you that this does have nothing to do with the sensitive stream designation that is presently under discussion, so I would ask that you keep your debate relevant to the section.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'd be happy to do that. Section 6(10) says that the designation doesn't apply "to applications that have been made but not decided before the time of the applicable designation under subsection (2)." I wonder if the minister could tell us how many applications are currently in the queue, and whether any of those applications are for the purpose of producing power.

Hon. C. McGregor: The reason that the provision exists is so that we don't change the rules midway for people who currently have an application in place. We think there are about 4,000 applications currently in hand.

[ Page 6209 ]

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, 4,000 is a very significant number. I wasn't aware that there were nearly so many in the queue. Just for my reference, how long have many of those been in the queue, or does that represent one year's worth of applications that come into the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: We get about 2,000 applications a year.

C. Clark: Could the minister tell us if she's aware whether any of the applications or what percentage of the applications are for power production? She may be able to give me only a ballpark on this.

Hon. C. McGregor: About 1 percent overall are for power. By far, the largest group is individuals for domestic purposes, at 52 percent.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

C. Clark: In section 7(4) it says that the recovery plan may include "measures to be undertaken by the government. . .for providing a sufficient flow of water in the stream or for restoring fish habitat." I note that the legislation, again, doesn't include any criteria or any standards that need to be met that might define what a sufficient flow of water in the stream is. I know that the definition for the amount of water that's needed for fish and the cycle that that water needs to be flowing at has changed over the years. That's why I'd suggest that it might be a good idea, in the legislation, to include some kind of definition or at least some kind of criteria that we could look to, to ensure we know what a sufficient flow of water would be to ensure fish habitat.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that and maybe tell us if that's something that she's planning to include in the regulations when they're produced.

[4:30]

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

C. Clark: Section 8(1)(b) recognizes that community-based interests can be issued a licence for streamflow protection purposes. This is different from every other licence that may be issued by the ministry, in that just about every other licence can be issued by the water comptroller. This one, though, requires that cabinet issue it. I wonder if the minister could tell us why this particular licence has a different process for approval than just about every other licence that the ministry issues for water protection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Currently under the Water Act a community group would have no standing to be granted a water licence, so we had to set in place a process through which that could happen. We believe that it's important that cabinet have the opportunity to review those applications. Criteria we'll be using, of course, are that they have a presence in the community and that they have a demonstrated commitment to that community and an interest in developing that resource.

C. Clark: I recognize that a community-based interest wouldn't currently have standing in the granting of water licences, but I'm interested in finding out why a different process has been put in place for the issuance of these licences as opposed to every other licence that the water comptroller has the power to issue. This is clearly a much higher standard than the other licences that could be issued to non-community-based groups. I'd specifically like to ask the minister why that different standard was put in place and get a sense of what kinds of considerations went into that decision.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's important to note that it's a different standard; it's not a higher standard. It's a different standard because the applicants don't have standing under the Water Act as it is currently involved. We really wanted to be very careful and cautious in how these licences were granted. There was a concern expressed by some stakeholders that a group could come in and make multiple applications in large scale across the province and not necessarily have an investment in that community and that particular resource. We were trying to ensure that we were focusing on a community stewardship model, and we want to have the opportunity to review those applications in that context.

C. Clark: It's my understanding, as well, that the community-based interests the ministry might envision would apply for a water licence would include groups like Ducks Unlimited, groups that had a local connection. I note that in the legislation, in 8(1)(f), it says that "it must include a condition that the licensee organization undertake works. . . ." I know that some community-based groups, like Ducks Unlimited, might undertake works in some circumstances, but in many circumstances the activities that they take on to protect fish don't include any works in them or what might specifically be defined in the Water Act as works. I wonder if the minister could just tell me, first, what kinds of works might be included for an environmental group or a community group involved in fish protection, and second, whether she is considering expanding the definition of works, at least, so that there's maybe a broader opportunity for groups to get these licences.

Hon. C. McGregor: The definition is indeed very broad and would encompass a large number of possible activities. It would not, in fact, necessarily have to engage in active restoration work on the stream but could be educational in focus. For instance, Ducks Unlimited expanded a marshland and wetlands area in our community. They did put some works into it originally, but their function is now educational in purpose -- raising the profile of the purpose of wetlands. It could involve tours or just ongoing maintenance and regular review of the particular area under question and so on. So I think it is broadly framed, and it's meant to be broadly framed to reflect a wide variety of possible works.

C. Clark: So I take it, then, that works will include things like an educational program that a group might start to protect fish on a particular river and that it isn't necessarily confined to basically putting a structure in place on the waterway at all. It can really just be a classroom experience or 

[ Page 6210 ]

something of that nature. The reason I'm confused about this is because I thought that the definition of works in the Water Act was much stricter than that. So I'll just ask the minister to give me a quick comment on that before we move on.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll just elaborate a little on what I pointed out earlier. Obviously it includes ongoing maintenance, so that's a description of works as well. Even doing something like garbage cleanup of the area or adding gravel are both considered to be works.

C. Clark: Does the ministry have any outstanding applications on the books for water licences from community-based groups?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, we wouldn't have any, because at this time they're not eligible to apply for a water licence.

C. Clark: Section 8(4) outlines the process through which a group might apply for a water licence. It seems to me to be a three-tiered process. First, the cabinet would make a decision and then the decision would be bounced back to the water comptroller or down a level to the officials and then bounced back. That might be a very time-consuming process. I wonder if the minister could comment on the reasons for putting in a three-stage process when a one- or even two-stage process might be quicker and a little more efficient.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to note that the intention of this section is to provide an opportunity to notify other water users, and that's the way it's normally handled under the Water Act. So once an application comes in, we notify other licence holders. It also gives us an opportunity to screen out any frivolous applications that might come forward.

C. Clark: The minister did point out that the process is a one-stage process under the Water Act. Again, this is a very different process and a much more time-consuming and probably less efficient process to use to make these decisions. I wonder why the process wouldn't be more like this: the cabinet or the minister would make a decision and then direct the water comptroller or the regional water manager to implement that decision and give the water manager some latitude and some flexibility as to how he or she might do that and, of course, obviously provide for notice to be given to other water users that might be affected.

Hon. C. McGregor: By using this process, we enable the other licensees to have the opportunity to object to that application, so that would then be considered by cabinet before making any decisions about what licences might be granted. This is a new provision, and I think it's quite innovative in fact. It gives an opportunity for community groups to engage in very active work around fish habitat enhancement works. But obviously we want to be sensitive to some of the concerns that were raised by other stakeholders in terms of the impacts that such applications might have, so this provides a mechanism for other stakeholders and other water licence holders to be able to review the request.

C. Clark: That process isn't explicitly provided for in the act, so I will just ask a couple more questions about it. Does the minister envision, then, a formal appeal process with strict time lines and strict criteria on the part of potentially affected users which cabinet or the minister could consider before an application is granted?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the model that's being proposed here, once a cabinet decision has been made, that's the final decision and it is not appealable.

C. Clark: In this three-step process that's outlined in section 8(4), the minister did refer, though, to the possibility for appeal by other users that might potentially be affected. I just wonder if she could outline for us what that appeal process would be and whether it's going to be formal and whether the guidelines for it will be clearly laid out in the regulations.

Hon. C. McGregor: I should have used the word "objection" rather than "appeal," because I've obviously confused the member. The other existing water licensees can issue an objection to the water licence, and that is considered under the current formal process we have under the Water Act.

C. Clark: So will the regulations include a requirement that people who might potentially be affected would, obviously, be given notice that they might be affected and informed of their right to lodge an objection?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the Water Act, they would have those rights, yes.

C. Clark: Before we leave this section, I want to note again that section 8(11) includes a reference to the public interest which isn't defined. I want to again take the opportunity to urge the minister to define those words in the regulations when she has the opportunity to draw those up. I think that's going to be an important way to strengthen the legislation and give it a little more meaning for the people that might be affected by it. I want to take the opportunity to make that point, and the minister doesn't need to comment on it again.

[4:45]

On section 9.

C. Clark: Section 9 deals with the right of the minister to order a temporary reduction in the flows in streams. It seems to me that should a temporary reduction order be required, it would probably be a fairly urgent issue that would need to be acted on fairly quickly. I think the way to make sure that something is acted on quickly is to put it in the hands of the front-line staff who would be dealing with the issue in the first place, not in the hands of the minister in Victoria who would probably be the last person in any case to find out about an issue in the field, especially since some of these issues are far afield. If there's an unusual situation, for example, a drought on a waterway, and a temporary reduction needs to be ordered, it would need to be ordered immediately because fish are so dependent and so vulnerable to even small changes affecting their habitat -- small changes in the level of the flow or in the temperature. So I'll ask the minister why they decided to leave that decision in the hands of the minister, because it would be much stronger -- and, in fact, effective -- to put it in the hands of the front-line staff, and probably it really defeats the purpose to put it in the hands of the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: The temporary reduction of water rights is a very serious matter. In fact, in the discussions around the drafting of this legislation, this matter evoked considerable response from some users because of that. So we 

[ Page 6211 ]

take the decision to reduce a water licence very seriously, and therefore we believe that it's more appropriate that the matter be reviewed at the minister's level. Obviously we would carefully consider the impacts on all the other licence holders, and in fact there is a specific reference to the need to consider agricultural users in particular. Obviously I would receive advice from staff who know what the impacts of this might be. All of that would be very carefully considered before a decision is made.

C. Clark: I don't think, though, that the minister would be able to act quickly enough to protect fish habitat in this regime that's proposed here. A temporary reduction would have to be ordered fairly urgently by the time a situation came to the attention of the ministry, and it would seem to me that front-line staff should be in a position to make that decision. Maybe the legislation could include the opportunity for the minister to overrule her staff -- which the minister always has anyway, obviously; the minister signs the paycheques. I don't think the process that's been proposed will operate quickly enough.

At the very least I would suggest that if the minister isn't open to delegating authority in the regulations to ensure that front-line staff have that authority, maybe she would want to put a strict time line in the regulations to ensure that the decision is made in a timely manner.

Hon. C. McGregor: I can assure the member that I will act as quickly as is necessary. My office deals with emergency orders all of the time. If and when such a situation arises, I will give it my immediate attention.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

C. Clark: Section 11 says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can order a regional water manager to make reductions in accordance with water management plans. My question to the minister is simply: doesn't that right already exist in the office of the water comptroller? If so, how does this differ from the current regime?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the current terms of the Water Act, if an individual is operating within the existing terms of their licence, we have no authority to remove any of that flow.

C. Clark: So this section -- and I'll just ask the minister to confirm this -- is intended to give the water manager the right to alter a flow even if the licensee is operating well within the conditions of the licence. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is cabinet that would make the decision to take back the water.

C. Clark: The cabinet could make that decision to take back water even if the licensee is operating well within the conditions of its licence. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Only on the advice of the water management plan.

C. Clark: The section goes on to say that the ministry or the government can transfer an apportionment of 5 percent of the quantity of water authorized by the applicable licence. Could the minister give us an idea of how the ministry arrived at that number of 5 percent?

Hon. C. McGregor: This takeback is without compensation. Clearly that was an important consideration in determining what the percentage should be. There is precedent in another act, the Forest Act, for a 5 percent takeback.

C. Clark: I've been told by some of the water experts out of UBC that in Oregon, for example, they have a whopping 40 percent that they're allowed to reduce. That may or may not be with compensation; I don't know. But a 5 percent reduction seems to me to be a fairly arbitrary number that the ministry has arrived at. I don't get the sense that the 5 percent number came as a result of a lot of consultation or even has a sound scientific basis. Can the minister tell us: after a 5 percent reduction is made, will the ministry be able, sometime in the future, to make a further 5 percent reduction if that's required, or will they be limited after the first reduction is made?

Hon. C. McGregor: If a licence were to transfer, the 5 percent could be taken back.

I'd just like to express my view that while the member might support a 40 percent takeback, I couldn't support a 40 percent takeback. In fact, in the consultations we had with stakeholders, I would suggest to you that there would have been near riot had the member suggested that 40 percent was an appropriate takeback from water users.

C. Clark: No, I wouldn't suggest that 40 percent is an appropriate takeback. My question is only that many jurisdictions have different numbers that they use, and Oregon is an extreme example; they have a 40 percent number. What I was asking the minister is how she arrived at 5 percent, and she wasn't able to tell us. She wasn't able to give us any sound basis for the decision. I'll just have to assume that it was an arbitrary decision that she grabbed out of the air. It might be right. It might be a good number. It might not. I don't know, but in the absence of any basis for the decision, we'll just have to wait and see if that number turns out to be the right one. I'll see if my colleagues have any comments on this section, as well.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

G. Abbott: I have a few questions, largely from the Municipal Affairs perspective, with respect to section 12. Section 12(1) notes: "Subject to subsection (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish policy directives. . . ." We have the term "directives" used on a number of occasions in this section, and perhaps in a few of the subsequent ones, as well, but we don't find a reference to "directive" in the definitions section. Could the minister advise: is a directive synonymous with an order? Is there a definition in other statutes? Or have I missed the definition in this statute with respect to what a directive is?

Hon. C. McGregor: The reference is in section 12(1), where it says: ". . .may, by regulation. . . ." It's meant to be a regulation.

G. Abbott: I think I understand that part. The question I really have is: when, for example. . . . This is hypothetical, but 

[ Page 6212 ]

if, for whatever reasons, the province decides that they must issue a policy directive to municipality X, what is that directive likely to look at? What force and effect is it likely to have: the force and effect of an order or of a guideline?

Hon. C. McGregor: It will have the full force and effect of a regulation, and the municipality must meet it or beat it.

G. Abbott: For the enlightenment of municipalities -- and regional districts in this case -- could the minister advise under what circumstances the government envisions that such a policy directive might be used?

Hon. C. McGregor: It will apply to every municipality.

G. Abbott: I think I appreciate that the directive could apply to any municipality in the province, and could apply to them collectively or individually. The drift of my last question was: under what circumstances does the ministry or the government envision that it may be necessary for such a policy directive to be put in place?

[5:00]

G. Abbott: I am occasionally obscure in the way I pose questions, and I do apologize for that.

My understanding of the policy directive issue from the briefing that we had is that, for example, municipality X decides that their riparian setback should be ten metres from the edge of the water body, but the province, after whatever process, concludes that the riparian setback should be 25 metres because of the unique circumstances surrounding that water body and development adjacent to it. It would be at that point, because of the differing views between the municipality and the province about what's appropriate in that circumstance. . . . That would be the kind of circumstance in which the province might issue a policy directive obliging the municipality to do that. Is my understanding of that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're really speaking in hypotheticals here, because we don't know that the regulation in fact will include the number of metres of setback. But if the regulation were to, say, state 25-metre setback, then the municipality would be obliged to meet that, or to have it greater than 25 metres.

G. Abbott: That does satisfy my curiosity on that count. Section 12(2) indicates: "Directives under subsection (1) may only be established after consultation by the minister with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities."

Could the minister provide whatever detail she has there with respect to how the ministry anticipates that consultation will be conducted? Is it something that is likely to take place through the joint council of UBCM and provincial cabinet representatives? Or is there some other process envisioned in terms of consultation between local government and the provincial government?

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly the mechanism of joint council is one route through which consultation can occur -- and has occurred, in fact, on this very point. We also have a memorandum of understanding between Municipal Affairs and UBCM as a mechanism through which we continue ongoing consultations. We are currently in the process of beginning those consultations. We're optimistic that we will have the regulation ready for the fall UBCM conference so it can be considered and feedback given to us at that time.

G. Abbott: That, I think, satisfies my concerns with respect to consultation.

Will this ultimately be something -- before it proceeds to that next level of the issuance of policy directives -- on which the government expects there will be joint concurrence between local and provincial, or will the provincial will prevail, failing the development of a consensus or concurrence?

Hon. C. McGregor: We certainly hope the consultation will achieve mutual agreement on what the appropriate regulations are. But in the eventuality that it becomes difficult to do that, obviously government has a role in terms of trying to deliver on its policy objectives. At that time we would take what measures are necessary to announce what the regulation would include. Again, I don't want to suggest that that's the approach we want to take, nor is it the approach we should take. I certainly think there's ample opportunity for us to engage in very effective consultation and to reach agreement.

G. Abbott: I do hope that is the way it works out; I hope that for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think it's important that the direction of this bill not be undermined by the province having to act in a unilateral way with respect to these issues.

What I find with Bill 25 in comparison to Bill 26 is that there are rather different underlying principles in the two bills. In Bill 26 -- which was a Municipal Affairs bill -- we find it very much directed toward enabling municipalities to undertake streamside covenants for protection and that kind of thing, and it's all strictly on a voluntary basis.

We do find in Bill 25 that there is this kind of implicit threat that if things do not proceed as the province would like to see them proceed, there is the potential for the province to step in and impose a policy directive. So there is a little difference in orientation with respect to relations with local government in the two bills.

I do hope that the spirit that gave rise to joint council and the spirit that I think is behind Bill 26 will also be the guiding role with respect to Bill 25. I think that concludes my questions on section 12, unless other members have questions.

Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

G. Abbott: I have one very brief question with respect to section 20. This question is one that has been posed to me by the Placer Mining Club of the North Okanagan. I suspect I know the answer to it, but I would like the minister to respond to my question so that it is on the record. This is a club that enjoys gold panning, I presume, in streams around the North Okanagan and southern interior area. Their concern was that in some way the reference to tailings -- both in the definition section and in section 20 -- might somehow be construed to include the remnants of a gold-panning operation. Could the minister advise of whether she has heard of a similar concern, or put to rest the fears of the North Okanagan Placer Mining Club?

[ Page 6213 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the existing act, the definition appears as it is now, other than in this version it introduces the word "debris." So the word "tailings" existed under the previous Water Act.

G. Abbott: Just for surety here, I'm assuming that there is no reason for the Placer Mining Club to be concerned about the remnants of their gold-panning operations -- that these are natural materials that they started out with, and natural materials return to the streams. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. We haven't changed anything as a result of the coming into effect of this section of this act.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 22 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 22,

(a) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) by repealing subsection (1)(l) and substituting the following:

(1) puts into a stream any debris, sawdust, timber, tailings, refuse, carcass or other thing or substance after having been ordered by an engineer or officer not to do so;, and

(b) in paragraph (b), by deleting the proposed section 41(1)(y) of the Water Act and substituting the following:

(y) contravenes an order under section 9(2) of the Fish Protection Act;.]

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

J. van Dongen: In terms of designating wildlife management areas as critical to wildlife, could that include private lands? Or could it include Crown lands which are leased by ranchers or other parties?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would always be Crown land.

J. van Dongen: But could it be Crown land that is being leased by ranchers?

Hon. C. McGregor: The Wildlife Act makes it clear that the designation of a wildlife management area does not affect any rights granted before the designation. So in the case of Crown land that was held, if there was a pre-existing agricultural lease, let's say, or a grazing lease, this would not affect it.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that answer and I think it's the answer I was looking for. I just want to add the comment. . . . I'm not asking the minister for a response, but I think throughout this legislation, including this section, there is a recurring theme of private interests versus public interest, and it seems to me that private interests clearly have to be recognized in the process. The direct stakeholders. . . . I'm concerned that their legitimate concerns are heard, and I'm also concerned about compensation where private interests are taken. I just want to register that as a general concern at this time.

Sections 27 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

C. Clark: I have a quick question with regard to the commencement. I notice that there's a staggered implementation provided for in the bill and that the act, except for section 4, comes into force by regulation. So section 4 will come into effect immediately at first reading of the act, I think. So could the minister tell me how many applications that section has affected?

The Chair: Hon. member, what section are you addressing?

C. Clark: I'm at 37 here.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 37 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 37(1), by deleting "the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "May 15, 1997, being the date this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly,".]

C. Clark: I'll pose the same question to the minister that I posed on the earlier section. I intended to ask her about the immediate coming into force of section 4 at first reading. How many applications will that affect?

[5:15]

C. Clark: Even when the amendment is made, my question remains: if the act came into effect on May 15, how many applications would section 4 affect? In other words, are there any applications for dams on those rivers that are designated under section 4 of the act that might be affected by its implementation?

Hon. C. McGregor: There have been no applications that we're aware of since May 15.

C. Clark: I think this section would also affect anything in the queue before May 15 on those rivers. Perhaps the minister could correct me if I'm wrong. And if I'm right, could she tell us how many applications there are on the books that might be affected?

Hon. C. McGregor: We know of no applications.

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 6214 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Fish Protection Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. C. McGregor: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Fish Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. McGregor: I call committee stage of Bill 29.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Schedules A to D inclusive approved.

On schedule E.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to schedule E standing in my name on Orders of the Day.

[SCHEDULE E, in the proposed description of Sargeant Bay park, by deleting "Redroffs Road" wherever it appears and substituting "Redrooffs Road".]

On the amendment.

J. Dalton: I assume this is the infamous spelling error. I've got it in here somewhere. I want to make just a couple of brief remarks in response to this amendment. I'm just going to read two excerpts from the 1913 Redrooffs Rag -- spelled correctly of course. Even way back then, they knew how to spell. One comment on the first page of the Rag: "To anyone who has visited Redrooffs, the very name is suggestive of rest and pleasure." I'm happy to say that's still the case. There is another point that I'm just going to read into the record. Happily my grandmother is mentioned in this 1913 volume: "Mrs. Dalton gave a large picnic on a small estate south of Morton Point" -- which is in Atna Bay in the Redrooffs area. So there you are. I'm very pleased to support this amendment, needless to say.

Amendment approved.

Schedule E as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Park Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. C. McGregor: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 29, Park Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage of Bill 39, hon. Speaker. With the indulgence of the House, the minister is on his way.

BUILDING OFFICIALS'
ASSOCIATION ACT

On section 1.

G. Abbott: I don't believe we will be spending a whole lot of time on this bill, particularly given that the minister is enjoying a very happy birthday today. I don't want to keep him here long, because I know what a celebratory kind of guy he is. I wouldn't want in any way to reduce the celebratory mood that he is undoubtedly enjoying as a consequence of the anniversary of his birth.

However, under the definition section, am I to understand. . . ? I think it's clear from later in the bill that the association doesn't cease to exist; all we're dealing with is a name change here. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank my colleague for his comments. The fact is, I haven't had a chance to celebrate yet, but I am looking forward to that.

The Building Officials Association currently exists as a society. What this does is make it a statutory organization, as opposed to an organization that would exist under the Society Act.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. All I was trying to ascertain was whether the association known as the Building Inspectors Association of British Columbia will cease to exist, effective with the passage of this bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The BIABC was the former name of the BOABC. Basically what this does, once this bill passes, is tie in, in terms of protection, the fact that they still have that name as well. They have the rights to that name.

G. Abbott: I think I understand that point now.

Also in the definitions section we have a reference to "registered building inspector" and "registered building official." A little later in the bill, in section 12, I think this question is answered. I hope the minister doesn't mind leaping around here a little bit, because we're not going to spend long on this. Is there any practical distinction between an RBI and an RBO?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. RBI is what they used to be referred to generally, and now the more common usage is RBO.

[ Page 6215 ]

G. Abbott: So in some cases, municipalities may have a registered building inspector on staff, or they may have a registered building official on staff. There is no distinction between the two, other than a semantic one, if that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: For all intents and purposes, a rose is a rose is a rose in this case.

[5:30]

On section 3.

G. Abbott: In section 3(d) there is reference to the provision of training, education, certification and discipline. The manner in which discipline is provided is clarified later in the act.

Could the minister advise how, in the first three -- and this may vary -- training will be provided, how education will be provided -- and I guess certification is different. How will those three things be provided through the BOABC?

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, they will develop their own bylaws as to how these three areas are administered and the service delivered. Basically, I think what you're looking at is education being done through some sort of institute such as BCIT, training through courses that could be offered through the association and certification through an examination process which their bylaws will determine and which could be done through a board of examiners or something like that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

G. Abbott: Section 6 suggests that it will be up to the individual or perhaps to the municipality to determine whether their building inspector or building official will be a member of this organization -- although I guess they can't advertise themselves as such, unless they are. But it appears, from the legislation, that it is going to be voluntary whether the person that the municipality hires to do that function is a member or not. Is that correct? Is it entirely a voluntary thing that will be determined by (a) the individual, and (b) the municipality?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct. You do not have to join the association and the municipality does not have to hire someone who joins the association. But clearly, anyone who is not a member of the association would not have the right to use the titles of either registered building official or registered building inspector. Clearly, I think that that would be something that municipalities would want to take into account in their hiring policies and in determining who they hire.

G. Abbott: I don't have any quarrel with the way it's being done here; I think it's fine, it's good.

The point I'm curious about is whether there would be any penalty or sanction where a municipality or an individual decided that they didn't wish to join the association. It may become an issue for some municipalities. I can't imagine that it would with many, but perhaps it will with some.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Over 90 percent of building officials in the province currently belong to the society, so there would not be a penalty. My own expectation is that as it moves from a society to a self-governing, regulating body with its own act, clearly there is an incentive for people to belong to it, and also, I think, an importance that municipalities will attach to membership in the organization.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

G. Abbott: This question is a short and straightforward one. Sections 13, 14 and 15 deal with inquiry, discipline and appeal respectively. The provisions with respect to those three things are quite extensive in the act. The question I have -- just to display my ignorance one more time here -- is whether the statutory provisions that one finds in this act with respect to those three things are consistent with the way those things are treated in other professional association acts or constitutions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in fact, they are.

Sections 13 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Building Officials' Association Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage of Bill 46.

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

On section 1.

G. Abbott: Given the size of this act -- I think it's about 62 pages -- and given the 223 sections involved, if it is acceptable to the Chair and acceptable to the minister, I'd be quite happy for us to deal with this in omnibus fashion, like: "Shall sections 1 to 223 pass?" If it is fair and acceptable to both of you that I move through the sections which are of concern to me -- there are not many. . . . But if we could have agreement that I can kind of bounce around here a bit, we can get this done quite expeditiously, I think.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have a problem with that, hon. member. The only caution I do have is that there are a number of amendments standing on the order paper in my name, and we would have to deal with them. But certainly I think we can expedite things.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

[ Page 6216 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 25(b), in the proposed section 8(2.1) of the Islands Trust Act, by deleting "319(2)" and substituting "319".]

Section 25 as amended approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 69 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 69,

(a) in the proposed section 280.4(5) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "the revision bylaw" and substituting "the revised bylaw", and

(b) in the proposed section 280.6(2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "the revision bylaw" and substituting "the revised bylaw".]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the proposed amendment to section 134.1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 134.1, by adding the following section:

Section 798(13) is amended by striking out "section 717(1) to (3)" and substituting "section 717".]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 149 standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 149, in the proposed section 940(3) of the Municipal Act, by adding "to a regional district" after "under subsection (2)".]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 181 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 181, by deleting the proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) and substituting the following:

(a) in paragraph (o)(ii) by striking out "the Motor-vehicle Act, the Public Utilities Act," and substituting "Motor Vehicle Act", and

(b) in paragraph (s) by striking out "Motor-vehicle Act" and substituting "Motor Vehicle Act".]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 223 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 223(1), by deleting "22, 23, 27 to 29, 31 to 41," and substituting "22, 27 to 29, 31 to 41,".]

On section 56.

G. Abbott: I'll try to catch up to the few items in here that caught my eye. As I noted at second reading, we are very much supportive of the direction of things here; but my insatiable curiosity about the conduct of municipal affairs compels me to ask just a few questions to get my mind clear on it.

As I understand it, section 56 involves the elimination of extra council requirements. Section 218 reads: "(1) A municipality may join with another municipality to exercise a power conferred by this Act. (2) An agreement under this section is not valid until ratified by a bylaw adopted by each council. (3) For the purpose of this section. . ." and so on.

The question I have is: under what circumstances are they able to join to mutually exercise a power? Does it mean a simple majority vote by each of the councils? If that is the case, can the function that they jointly exercise also be terminated by a simple majority of the two councils?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, this eliminates the two-thirds requirement on each of the participating municipalities. So it does require just a simple majority. The way you get into things is also the way you get out. So it would be a simple majority to get out, as well.

On section 61.

G. Abbott: The next section which I would like to call the minister's attention to is section 61. I know municipalities and regional districts have been requesting this particular section of the ministry for at least a couple of years. Is there any further enabling authority required beyond that provided in sections 61, 75 and 129? Does this complete the menu in terms of what is needed by municipalities and regional districts to operate airports? Or is there additional authority that will be needed to be conferred in the future?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These sections will give them most of the authority that they've been requesting. There will still be some outstanding issues -- aboriginal issues for example, and some land issues that involve other ministries, of which we've yet to resolve all the issues to everybody's satisfaction. But, by and large, this is the vast majority of the changes that local governments have requested. It deals with some of the basic concerns, such as fees, for example. So it deals with the substantive issues that are out there.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that there may be statutory provisions that need to be provided by other ministries. The heart of the question is whether this bill provides everything that municipalities and regional districts need from this ministry -- this completes the menu in terms of this ministry.

[5:45]

G. Abbott: My next question is with respect to section 68. Section 68 describes the exercise of powers through a municipal code. This is a concept which is new to me. Perhaps it is not new to the ministry or to the Municipal Act; I'm not sure. But I would appreciate a little background on what a municipal code is, how it varies from the old way of doing things and what the advantages of it are.

On section 68.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess in some ways what might be an even better term is "comprehensive bylaw." Code is just another term, if you like, for a comprehensive umbrella bylaw. It's used extensively in Ontario.

Let's say, for example, that we had a number of bylaws in different sections that were dealing with businesses. We would be able to consolidate them under one comprehensive business bylaw that would regulate or prescribe all the activities and bylaws as they pertain to businesses in a par-

[ Page 6217 ]

ticular municipality. It would have the name "code," when in fact you could just as easily refer to it as, for example, the city of Port Coquitlam's comprehensive business bylaw No. 1204.

G. Abbott: I surmise from the minister's response that there really is no distinction between what might be termed a "municipal code" under this act and what might more traditionally be referred to as a "comprehensive general bylaw." There is no particular advantage to be conferred by the term "municipal code." This is just another way of saying the same thing.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It doesn't confer any additional powers or any special status. I guess the best way of explaining it is that if in, let's say, my own community of the city of Port Coquitlam we had two dozen bylaws, each regulating a different aspect of business activity within the community, what this allows you to do is to take those two dozen bylaws and combine them under one comprehensive general bylaw. Then you can organize them by section; you can organize them by activity. It just makes it much more user-friendly. A person wanting to know, for example, what the bylaws covering business activity in the community are can just go straight to that one comprehensive bylaw. It can be organized by theme or by topic, and it's almost in a sense like one-stop shopping.

On section 141.

G. Abbott: The next section which I want to briefly canvass is section 141. This is one of the few rather new departures that we find in Bill 46. It relates to the application of the variable tax rate system to regional districts. As I think pretty much everyone that is connected with the municipal affairs field knows, unlike municipalities, regional districts have not had the ability in the past to vary their tax rate systems. Municipalities obviously have that. They can, for example, adjust the ratio between business and residential -- or any of the areas. This, for the first time, offers an opportunity for regional districts to do the same, although only below the threshold or below the rate set by the provincial government. Is that a fair summary of what we're doing here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct and only for three particular classes of assessment.

G. Abbott: My understanding is that the provisions for the variable tax rate system under section 141 are largely inspired by requests from some of the northern regional districts with respect to tax rates on resources. Is that the case? Were there any other requests elsewhere in the province which prompted this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was primarily from the north. In fact, there are requests from other parts of the province to look at sort of a full variation on the tax rate as it applies to regional districts, and we are looking at that.

G. Abbott: Given that this does move us into a new area with respect to a variable tax rate system for regional districts, is the broader issue of regional district control over their own variable tax rate system something. . . .? The minister indicated that, in a general way, there have been some requests from regional districts to do that. Is it an issue that the joint council has seized at this point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not as yet. It's starting to come through in that the capital regional district has made requests of us to look at some particular issues. Some of the regional districts in the Kootenays, for example, have also made requests to look at particular issues. Basically, what we've said is: "We will look at it from a ministry point of view, but if you want the change, then it's got to start coming through that joint council process." We've already asked the UBCM to start to give us their proposals or priorities for the coming year in terms of legislation. I expect you will start to see some of these things work their way up that process, work their way up the priority list.

G. Abbott: Actually, I commend that process. For regional districts this is always one of those things of: be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. I always kind of appreciated, as a regional district director, not having to make those very difficult decisions about what the ratio between business and residential would be and all the other ones associated with it. Many regional districts are quite happy having them set by the province. On the other hand, as regional districts evolve in this province, I expect they'll take on more authority and continue to expand the sophistication they have in dealing with issues. They may well want to see the provisions here be extended to more areas. I'm glad to leave that in your capable hands. Taking it through the joint council is a good way to deal with it.

On section 217.

G. Abbott: The final area I have some question on is section 217, if I can skip forward to that. The provisions of 217 define "protected person" as government, minister, municipality and so on, down the line. The one thing that I don't see in there -- which is perhaps noteworthy, given the importance that regional districts have with respect to solid waste management today -- is any reference to regional districts. Am I to assume that, as is the case in some other areas of the Municipal Act, a municipality is the same as a regional district? Or is the omission deliberate here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under the Waste Management Act a municipality is also defined as a regional district. The definition in this particular act would be the same. So municipality also includes regional district.

G. Abbott: For some time there have been -- and regrettably, I haven't followed it as closely as I should -- quite pronounced concerns on the part of municipalities with respect to their responsibilities for site contamination and that kind of thing. Is section 217 aimed at dealing with that issue? The city of New Westminster has been prominent among those advancing that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This deals solely with their role as regulators, and it doesn't address the assessment issue, which is one of their primary concerns. That is being addressed outside the purview of this particular act. It's a priority within the ministry, and we are attempting to bring a resolution that will resolve the problem fully.

G. Abbott: This is my last question. Would the words and the form that are used in section 217 also be the same kind of words and form that would be used with respect to addressing the issue of liability protection for building inspection?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It might, but not necessarily. If that sounds vague, it's probably because it is vague at this particu-

[ Page 6218 ]

lar point. This basically is amending or dealing with a section that's already there, whereas the other issue around liability is one that has yet to be tackled to the same degree that this particular issue has. So, maybe yes, maybe no.

Sections 26 to 223 inclusive, including amendments, approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1977, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. M. Farnworth: With the leave of the House, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: 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 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

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

A. Sanders: Excuse me for not being totally organized on the minister's birthday. I was contemplating what to bring him, and I do wish him a happy birthday. It's a very unfortunate way to spend it, and I hope there's opportunity for you to have a nice evening.

We've covered a lot of important issues, and as I had mentioned to the minister last night, there are some issues to look at that are of less magnitude. There is no specific reason to start anywhere in particular, but what I would like to start on is the area of computers and technology. In an era when our children are going to school as we speak, this is obviously a very, very important part of the basic education of our children.

It's interesting. If people asked me what our children should be getting when they graduate from school as the final common denominator, the crucible of skills that they should come away with, I may have said literacy, numeracy and problem-solving abilities a decade or two before; but that crucible now must also contain technological skills.

It is absolutely imperative for children entering the workforce from any level of activity, be it something at a university or postgraduate level or all the way through to any of the skilled areas, to use and be familiar and comfortable with the computerized technology that is apparent in every industry. I am very interested to see that in the mills in the area where I live, Okanagan-Vernon, the big employers require grade 12 to work in the mills.

This is something that is not common across British Columbia, or it certainly wasn't a decade ago. The reason is not specifically because the mills have felt it's their responsibility to educate the public, but more because the technology required for fixing and maintaining most of the machinery in the mills requires computer-literate skills and the ability to read a manual that involves the skills that would be necessary to undertake the computerization part of the forest industry.

We have seen quite a significant change, and in my lifetime, this change has mushroomed in importance. Our own Premier has stated for the record: "We want to make sure that every elementary school, every high school and every library is wired and plugged in to the Internet." We are looking at a time when things have rapidly changed so much.

We talked last night, to a degree, about the differential in terms of what constitutes a classroom and what would constitute a school in future -- and in fact, what might constitute a teacher. Computerization is one of the cornerstones for that rapidly evolving change in what we view as education.

I have several questions to the minister on this topic. The first is a very straightforward one: in the ministry's 1997-98 ratios for computers to students, what is the acceptable ratio for elementary school and the acceptable ratio for high school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The targets we have set for ourselves are a ratio of one computer for every three students in secondary schools and one for every six students in elementary schools. The targets are a result of a five-year program with technology grants.

A. Sanders: How many schools have achieved that ratio for the elementary and the secondary students?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff estimate that 35 to 40 percent of schools have achieved these ratios. That's probably appropriate, because we're just going into the third year of this five-year program. The allocation this year for the technology grants is $10.7 million, and as I say, this is the third year of a program. We have two more years to go after this one to achieve those targets.

A. Sanders: Is there a standard of computer that is outlined within the target, as well?

[ Page 6219 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say just a little on how the technology grants program works, because I think it will address some of the issues the member is talking about. Each school district that is going to be receiving funds from the technology grants program must file a two- to three-year technology plan with the ministry that outlines the sorts of computers they expect to be acquiring and what the capabilities are. That enables us to monitor and advise them on what the appropriate standards are for the hardware they're acquiring at various levels.

As the member knows, it's a complex issue. First, there's a differential between what would be required in a primary grade for some basic computer familiarization and basic software and, say, a secondary program that might be running desktop publishing or a GIS system. There's a huge range in the sort of hardware that would be required.

The other complicating factor, of course, is that the technology is advancing and costs are changing almost so rapidly that we can't put standards on paper. Right now, what we're saying very clearly to schools is: "Don't acquire anything that's not going to be networkable; don't acquire anything that's not going to allow access to the Internet and a connection to PLNet." As I've referenced earlier in estimates, we expect to begin connections to the PLNet this fall.

A. Sanders: In 1995 the minister announced the provincial technology strategy. At that time, $20 million was announced for this project, and then it was reannounced again in 1996. Why was it announced twice?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me sort of capture the magnitude of this. This is a program that is being jointly done by school districts and the ministry. It's a five-year program, with $10 million each year from the ministry and $10 million each year from school districts. In total, it's a $100 million program. That's why the member might be seeing $10 million one year and $20 million the next. It depends on whether you do the clump of the school districts and the ministry or just the ministry alone. I think it was probably reannounced in '96 for the very reason that the member is asking questions here in 1997 -- to confirm the commitment.

A. Sanders: From the number of letters I got on this particular issue, I think it really bugs people to have the same amount of money announced several times. I think that's one of the things that's been a problem for the Ministry of Education. I would just give that piece of advice to the minister -- that quite often this is working against us. Instead of people feeling we've done more for them, they're actually quite cross that it's been reannounced, despite the fact that it's the same money, the same school or the same issue.

In the 1996 portion, how much -- if any -- of the $10 million actually went into technology 2?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A little confusion: I'm not quite sure what technology 2 means.

A. Sanders: It's a term I got from your report.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay. The answer to the question is that all of the $10 million was allocated and distributed to school districts. They hold it in trust for the purposes of acquiring technology. It is, as I say, a targeted fund shared with the school districts, not to be used for other expenditures. So the entire amount goes towards the purposes of the fund.

[2:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The technology plans that school districts submit in order to receive the grant must address all of those points.

A. Sanders: Does the minister have a breakdown of the school districts in terms of how many of the districts have met five of the criteria, four and, decrementally, three, two, one or zero? Is such information being put into some kind of encapsulated form?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The goal here is to have all districts achieve all the targets by the end of this five-year process. School districts, as they submit their technology plans, report on their progress towards achieving them every year. Then every year, I'm advised by staff, we hold a conference of those engaged in this at the district level, to monitor progress and to provide advice and assistance as they continue working towards it.

Earlier I talked about. . . . In estimates I did mention one other interesting stat that had come to my attention as we were talking about the provincial learning network. It was sort of a measure of how well we had progressed in getting teachers involved in the use of this technology. The stat was that approximately four out of five teachers, some 80 percent, in the school system are on e-mail and are Internet users to some degree. That's quite different from what the situation was only a few years ago.

So the progress is being made; we're measuring it. The goal is, at the end of this five years, to have all of these goals achieved in all districts.

A. Sanders: That's reassuring to hear. I don't think I made my question to the minister brief enough. Is there actually some kind of accumulation of all that information to see how far along each district is in terms of how many of the criteria they've met?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has that information for each district. We don't seem to have a part that wraps it all up in a neat tabular form, which I think is what the member is asking for. We review these one by one with districts every year and monitor their progress. As I know the member will recognize, having been involved at the district and school level, progress towards those goals is not uniform across the province or across any particular district. You have some schools that are definitely the target for technology grants this year, and others that are not. It will be next year or the year after. So do we have any districts that have achieved 100 percent of all the goals at this point? My answer to you would be that I'm not aware of any, but I am aware that progress is being made by all districts on all goals.

A. Sanders: In terms of the accountability structure for what is in place in the individual school district from a technology point of view, the minister has mentioned that each 

[ Page 6220 ]

year in the district reports the boards are asked where they are in terms of the criteria that have been delineated for them to achieve within five years -- the six priority issues -- as well as the accounting for where that funding has been spent. Will there be some final report at the end of the five-year term? What will be the accountability structure to make sure that at the end of the five years we arrive at where we're hoping we are going to be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will be asking staff to prepare a summary report at the end of the five-year period, hon. member.

A. Sanders: I have a letter from a Mr. Ed Erickson from Kamloops. He has asked me to ask why the government would sell off entire pallets of computers in various states of condition for $90. His suggestion was that these computers first be refurbished at a training institution or college by students as part of their training, and secondly, that these computers be recycled into our schools. Apparently this is done in Toronto and also in the United States. I just want a comment from the minister on this.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just wanted to confirm with staff my understanding that we have such a program in place in this province, and we do. Any surplus computers from government that meet the standards we are asking school districts to have in this plan are indeed refurbished and supplied to schools. The Science Council of B.C. actually undertakes to do that work. This program is also available to private sector firms which are donating used equipment through it and getting that into the schools. Also, I think the member referenced that some private firms in her region of the province were working with the school districts on providing equipment to the school system.

A. Sanders: I had a letter, but I have not brought it up here, which I'm very sorry about. It is a fairly technical letter, and the language and the concepts are beyond my computer skills. However, it is from an individual in the lower mainland who is working on a system where you could take any computer and add a smart chip to it, basically, and bring it up to the standard of a much more modern computer. I think this individual actually works in the Vancouver Public Library. I believe the letter had also been sent to the ministry. She was describing this system of how we could upgrade old computers by using this ancillary technology to bring the computerized system in each school up to an advanced state without having to repurchase all of the hardware. I'm wondering if the ministry recalls any letters from this individual.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't recall any letters from this individual. We do that sort of upgrading through the program I just mentioned, and some 200 to 300 computers go out to schools every six months or so just from government surplus -- upgraded or not. Clearly, installing a chip will work with some computers, but again it depends on their age and whether that will actually do it. If it worked for all, I'd have a brand-new use for my Apple II Plus, but I don't think it's going to work. So again, some technology can upgrade. Where it is possible to do so with government surplus, we are doing so.

A. Sanders: I'd like to have the opportunity to show this letter to the minister in order to have the staff really look at the applicability of this. It's unfortunate that I just have forgotten to bring it.

Another short item I want to discuss is the concern I have received from constituents and indeed from across the province on confidentiality in the CAPP program. We have talked about the CAPP program, and this is not an undertaking to discuss this more. It is specifically to focus on one issue.

There were concerns about family confidentiality from a number of individuals who wrote to me with respect to student code numbers in the CAPP program. In fact, the privacy commissioner has written a statement concerning the issue, and I have left the statement on my desk with the other information. Basically, it is saying that the code number system is perhaps not the best idea, in that this could give access to people who really did not need to have that confidential family information. With respect to the privacy commissioner's ruling on code numbers in CAPP, what has the ministry done in response to that ruling?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've done three things. We have accepted the report's recommendations in principle and have referenced three specific actions. First, all references to the PIN number will be eliminated in CAPP materials. Second, as part of the work around the update of the CAPP curriculum as a result of last fall's review, a section has been added to the curriculum introduction that makes teachers and administrators aware of the commissioner's recommendations on confidentiality and opting for alternate delivery. Third, as part of an information package that we're sending to the field around the update of the CAPP IRP, superintendents are also being alerted to the commissioner's report and requested to respond appropriately, and they're going to be provided with guidelines which provide detailed suggestions on developing alternative delivery for CAPP.

A. Sanders: Another bit of information along that same line, which I have quite commonly in my own district in terms of complaints about the CAPP program, is that parents were under the understanding that they had the opportunity to write a note and excuse their family member from sections of CAPP that they felt intervened in their religious or family value system. Quite commonly, I was told that the teachers ignored the note, and the child was kept in the program. I just wonder if this has come to the minister's attention and whether this appears to be a widespread problem.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff are not aware that this is a widespread problem. Clearly a teacher who acted in that way would not be acting in accordance with the clear requirements in the curriculum or in accordance with the circular the deputy sent out recently to superintendents reinforcing the findings of the commissioner's report on suggestions for developing alternative delivery for CAPP materials.

A. Sanders: So from that answer I would think that the minister does mean that it is certainly within the rights and privileges of parents to do this.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, absolutely. They need to provide evidence that an alternative delivery for information on the topic is provided -- that's what we're talking about with alternate delivery mechanisms -- so that we can ascertain that the curriculum materials are being covered. But it doesn't have to be done in a classroom if a parent wishes that their children not receive that information in that way.

A. Sanders: Could the minister give me an overview and perhaps some comments on the Nechako electronic busing program?

[3:00]

[ Page 6221 ]

I have asked the ministry to put together a committee to review electronic delivery of programs to address issues of standards and attainment of broad educational objectives. But that's the shape of what's going on right now in Nechako Lakes.

A. Sanders: Are there any statistics to show the outcome of the electronic busing program compared to in-classroom instruction? Has that kind of structure been in place for us to look at how this is working?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We anticipate doing that sort of comparison, hon. member. The program is currently only in its third year. In the first year there was really too small a number to really do any meaningful assessment on it. So I think that in a couple of years they will have sufficient numbers and sufficient time to actually assess the efficacy of this method of delivery of curriculum.

A. Sanders: Again dealing with small, short-type issues, I want to ask a few questions on provincial learning assessment results.

The first question is: looking at educational accountability, why have the 1996 PLAP social studies results not been released to school districts and the public?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, member, for the question. I was unaware of the issue.

We expect these results to be released -- actually, the assistant deputy tells me -- in the next very few weeks. There was some concern about whether the numbers that were in the social studies PLAP were actually accurate. There was some work to be done to make sure that the data was accurate, and then some further work between the ministry and the team of reviewers at Simon Fraser University on the shape of the conclusions drawn from those numbers. That work, I am advised, is nearly complete, and we expect a report to be released shortly.

A. Sanders: I've received a number of letters about this. The results were to be released in the spring -- at least from correspondence dated May 1997 -- and a number of schools have requested this because they wanted to analyze the results. So they will be happy to hear that they are going to be provided that information soon.

My second question is regarding the education advisory committee: why has the education advisory committee, which is mandated by the School Act to meet regularly and provide advice to the minister, not held meetings for a number of years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's fascinating that the member should ask this question. It's one that senior staff have recently provided me with some briefing materials and advice on as to how we move forward in reconstituting that committee. The expectation is that we will be doing that and, hopefully, making sure it's reactivated by this fall.

A. Sanders: When the minister says "reactivated by this fall," does that mean that the committee would likely be meeting in 1997 or just reactivated in terms of a paper form?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Meeting.

A. Sanders: We're getting somewhere here, hon. Chair. It's good to hear.

Another area where I've been asked some questions is from a constituent, not of mine but of one of my colleagues, and the ministry will probably be aware of this individual. Her name is Joyce Mainland, and she is an executive member of the Blind Children and Youth: Parents Association. This woman, I believe, has a blind daughter in our school system. She is very well read and well informed and very credible. She asks a number of questions and has asked me to bring these to the meeting today, and I will do so on behalf of the education committee for blind students.

The first question is: will the minister recognize that the education and training of blind and low-vision students is specialized and specific? And will the minister give parents and members of the blind community assurances that the education for the blind will be reorganized under those criteria?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We can do this in a couple of ways. I'll try to outline some of the initiatives and programs we now have in place to address the learning of blind and vision-impaired students. The other way we could do it is by asking the member to provide the correspondence to me, and I'll get the ministry to reply directly to your correspondent. That may be good for dealing with some of the details, because I suspect that both in the member's questions and in my responses we're apt to lose some of the nuance of what the person is asking.

Now, let me say just very briefly that we do recognize that we need to attend to the needs of blind students. Districts have identified 94 students who are legally blind and another 362 who have various degrees of vision loss. They're enrolled in schools across our communities. The ministry provides supplemental funding to the boards, as part of the block to support boards in delivering services to them, under special education -- part of special education grants.

In addition to that funding, the ministry provides an array of provincial services to assist boards. We have a provincial resource centre for the visually impaired that provides alternate-format material of provincially recommended learning resources and specialized equipment. The budget for that centre is $800,000 for the '97-98 school year.

Special Education Technology B.C. provides technology to meet the needs of blind students, and $600,000 is allocated to that provincial program in '97-98. Funds are also available to enable school districts to train teachers and teacher-assistants in Braille instruction.

Finally, the ministry has developed and distributed a resource book -- I understand it's been well received by the learning community -- called "Students with Visual Impairments, A Resource Guide to Support Classroom Teachers," to help teachers who enrol blind students.

So we are indeed attending to the needs. As I say, I'd be glad to take a copy of the member's correspondence and have the ministry respond in detail to the concerns it contains.

[ Page 6222 ]

A. Sanders: I would be quite pleased with that. If the minister would do that in an expeditious fashion, so this woman feels her concerns have been met, then I would have no problem with that solution.

There are a couple of things that are, however, appropriate to read into the record. This woman quoted some statistics and background on educational services for blind and low-vision children in B.C. Of her statistics, there are four that I think are of some merit for us all. One was:

"According to a CNIB vocational counsellor who deals with students who have completed their formal education, of the students who are blind or low-vision who graduate from the current education system in B.C., only 20 percent possess the credentials to continue on to post-secondary opportunities. Of this 20 percent many do not have the necessary independent travel skills, social or life skills that will enable them to live independent lives.

"Of the remaining 80 percent of graduating students, they arrive on the doorstep of the CNIB not only missing the gaps experienced by the other 20 percent, but they are often illiterate and unable to function independently. The CNIB then face the challenge of filling the gaps left by the incomplete education. Often the CNIB is unable to fill in these gaps, and with the 80 percent unemployment rate of the blind, these students are left to exist on a disability pension.

"In comparison, the province of Ontario, in which the provincial government not only provides acceptable funding to support the education and training of the blind, 70 to 80 percent of students who graduate either from the provincial school for the blind or out of the mainstream possess the credentials for post-secondary opportunities. While in B.C. the Ministry of Education spends $17,000 towards the education of a blind, Braille-reading student, the province of Ontario expends approximately $35,000, more if the child attends the specialized school.

"While the Ministry of Education in B.C. established vague ministerial guidelines for school boards which contain unclear directives for education of the blind, the Ministry of Education in Ontario provides for an 'in-lieu-of grant' that not only provides appropriate funding but also delineates how the school board must spend the funds, along with an accountability mechanism to ensure the quality of service and instruction are being provided. . . ."

One of the questions that I think she would like answered today -- the rest can wait -- is: will the minister disclose the amount of funding recently given to the CNIB and explain why this was done, when the CNIB no longer provides direct delivery of service to blind and low-vision children in British Columbia? My understanding is that the Ministry of Education gave the CNIB money, although they do not service children under the mandate of the CNIB.

[3:15]

A. Sanders: The second part of the question is: what accountability measures are in place in the Ministry of Education for the funds received by Sunny Hill health centre for providing comprehensive and appropriate levels of service to these children and their families?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Sunny Hill Hospital does assessments for school districts. The accountability rests with the school districts, which say they are getting appropriate assessments from Sunny Hill. We expend some $700,000 on this service.

A. Sanders: There's one other area that Mrs. Mainland has made a point on which I think is important. B.C. has not graduated any specialized teachers for the blind in over three years. This comes at a time when the population of blind children entering education is increasing. How will the ministry address these shortages? Again, I feel that a written answer from the ministry staff is fine.

The second point is that the minister enshrine in the School Act measures to promote Braille literacy and rights to access Braille for all kids for whom Braille would be an essential component of education. The third point is that the ministry's special education branch, where there are no personnel qualified in the specialized area of blindness, should fill that vacancy or that position to ensure that a specific area of blindness has been represented.

I believe that some of the activities for blind children are being taken over by the Ministry for Children and Families. That ministry has focused on summer programs for deaf and deaf-blind children, but there have been no such programs for blind and low-vision children. Mrs. Mainland wanted me to bring this forward to the minister and ask, if this is an oversight, whether we could have the ability to remediate the situation and allow a clearer directive to be given.

I am happy to provide this information to the minister. If he would commit to me to write to Mrs. Mainland or to have the ministry staff phone her and answer her questions, then I am more than happy to provide the information and not overly prolong the discussion of this issue. She does make points that make me feel it is important, and she has a very succinct handle on the circumstances in B.C.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will commit to making sure that staff both talk to your correspondent about her concerns and then prepare a letter for my signature responding formally to them.

I want to talk to one point the member raised, which I addressed in my other comments about teacher education. We have a program that provides funds to school districts to enable them to train teachers or teacher-assistants in Braille instruction. Those funds would be provided to UBC to actually do the training. If the requests come, the funds will be there.

A. Sanders: Another group has asked me to ask the minister some questions. There are a couple of areas in this particular collection of questions that I find interesting from a neurologic point of view. We have some pretty good studies now that show the lateralization effects of the things we do in the school system, which, in another time, would perhaps have been considered ancillary: music education, physical education, art.

Even before those studies were well entrenched, I think the ministry certainly made a move in this direction by doing such things as including fine arts as part of core learning for graduation. I see that that is part of an understanding of something that from a hard data point of view had not even really been delineated.

One of the things I'm finding with the budget decreases that have occurred in the province is that a lot of the smaller groups that would come under what I call the lateralization 

[ Page 6223 ]

activities -- music, for example -- are getting more antsy about the situation of education as they perceive money becoming tighter in the ministry budgets. The things that always tend to get cut are the ones that are hard to measure, and music is one of those.

We saw this with the Victoria school board, which was demonstrating at the Legislature this summer. They felt that the first things to go on their school budget would be their strings program and their band program, and I think there is a certain degree of unrest among the people who consider those ancillary activities to really be part of what should be considered core.

The Coalition for Music Education in British Columbia has asked me to ask the minister a number of questions, and I will do it with haste. What can the minister tell us about the state of music education in the province? Has the minister conducted any district-by-district studies to see how music education is offered?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have figures, though not here with us, on enrolment in music programs around the province, and we could surely provide those to the member. The situation with the Victoria school board that the member references was resolved, I think, with the continuation of those programs. It's interesting. I think Victoria is one of the few districts that provides elementary instruction in music. There hasn't been any in Prince George for probably 15 years.

There are variations around the province as to what the principal targets are for the sorts of activities the school districts decide on. Clearly they do so in response to parent demands and to parent and student interests in certain areas, be it art, music or drama. The list goes on.

I'll put on another hat just very briefly, the hat of a parent of a student who had music as one of his prime non-academic interests throughout junior-secondary and secondary school. I escorted him to any number of festivals and competitions of music educators, and I guess my conclusion from doing that is that our music educators across the province have a group of highly committed students and do a good job of teaching them.

A. Sanders: It perhaps sounds to those who aren't as interested in this area like something that may be a frill, but I have a special interest in some of the outcomes from those who are involved in these additional areas that have to do with the school system -- the cognitive skill profiles of those kids, as well as the academic performance and retention.

There are good studies to show that kids who are involved in music, for example, will quite often have better grades in other areas and in other subjects. They also seem to have quite an improved ability to do personal planning, and we have instituted the CAPP program to teach them personal planning. A number of the kids who are in music seem to have already gained the skills of self-motivation, and I think that's an interesting circumstance.

The other area where music seems to increase. . . . I do believe in music at the elementary level. I don't play any instrument personally, but my children have had music instruction in their schools, starting at grade 3. For the interest of the minister, I brought an article that actually outlines quite well -- for a periodical-type magazine -- the interneural connections and the increased corpus callosum crossover that occur with music at early ages.

With this "electrical wiring," the article states, the earlier you start doing the transmitting in terms of music, athletic activity and sport, the more you seem to develop increased interconnections, so we may actually be doing our kids quite a bit of service. I'll provide this for the minister. It's called "Fertile Minds," and it comes from Time magazine, June 1997. I'd like to talk about daily physical education or physical education in general, but my colleague from Shuswap would like to talk briefly about capital expenditures, as well as my colleague from Okanagan West.

[3:30]

I want to ask the minister some questions about A.L. Fortune Secondary in Enderby. I have been pursuing this issue for a few months now, and I have written letters to all of the three or four Ministers of Education that we've had in recent months. To briefly recap the situation with respect to A.L. Fortune, the school was built for about 375 students. That was the anticipated school population when it was built. It now holds about 490 -- or it did in the last school year -- with 510 anticipated for the coming school year. It has six existing portables, and I gather a couple of new ones have been brought in recently.

The school has a few other deficiencies which one would not expect in a school in British Columbia. It has no cafeteria. It has no meeting area nor an area for the performing arts. In short, there is no place for students to meet and congregate at lunch hour and that kind of thing. One of the notable features about A.L. Fortune Secondary is that some 65 to 70 percent of the students who attend, because of the rural nature of the area, are bused in. This, of course, complicates some of the projects with respect to the operation there, notably the lack of a cafeteria and meeting area. Students at the lunch hour, because they've been bused in, really have no place to go.

The ministry has, on at least a couple of occasions, acknowledged that there are deficiencies with respect to the size of the school and to some of the features of the school. I believe that in 1994 or 1995 there was, with some fanfare, an announcement made by the ministry that it was proceeding with an ambitious renovation project at A.L. Fortune. For reasons which I'm sure have been explored previously in these estimates, that work did not proceed.

I'll perhaps, at this point, ask the minister for an update on what the ministry's plans are for A.L. Fortune and what the time frame for those plans is.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Funds for planning for this project were included in the '97-98 budget, which we're debating, so it's appropriate that we discuss these now. Staff are discussing, with the school district, many of the issues that the member raised around how much more space, how the extended-day initiatives fit in, what its requirements are, how it works in an area more rural than urban and what implications that has for the design of the project.

So the project is in design phase this year, and that work is ongoing with the school district. Decisions on construction would be taken in 1998-99 or beyond.

G. Abbott: To follow up briefly on that, I am aware -- and I'm actually pleased to leave in the capable hands of the school board -- of the negotiations and discussions with the ministry with respect to this project. I do want to say, however, that while I appreciate the reasons why the ministry is pursu-

[ Page 6224 ]

ing the extended-day philosophy with respect to schools throughout British Columbia, in the situation of A.L. Fortune and other -- if I can characterize them -- rural-based schools in British Columbia, the ministry may need to take a broad view of that to in effect, in some cases, cut them some slack.

It's a difficult concept, in practical terms, to put in place in a rural-based school where perhaps 70 percent or more of the students are bused in. It gets into, as I'm sure the minister well knows, complexities involved in coordination with the elementary schools, the length of the busing trip, the amount of busing and so on. It is difficult, and I hope that there is some flexibility in the ministry with respect to addressing the concerns of schools like A.L. Fortune, while at the same time pursuing the policy with respect to an extended day.

I'll make that pitch at this point, and I'll make an additional pitch. I hope this is a constructive suggestion. This year the Enderby and District Credit Union is celebrating their fiftieth anniversary. One of the things that they were proposing to do -- and I thought it was very generous and constructive of them to do it -- was to offer $50,000 towards a project involving the addition of a performing arts area in A.L. Fortune Secondary School. This is a generous offer, and it should be a good offer from the ministry's perspective, as well. It's an example of a community-based organization making a commitment to a public function -- the A.L. Fortune Secondary School.

Because it is their fiftieth anniversary, the credit union is anxious that there be some tangible sign of their investment in the school in 1997. Now, that may not be possible at this point; I don't know. The minister can comment better. Again, I would hate to see the generous proposal that's been made by the credit union lost, because in many ways it's an interesting precedent that the minister might like to see elsewhere in schools in British Columbia. I hope, if it is at all possible, that the minister can discuss. . . .

Again, I'm happy to leave it in the capable hands of the school board and their staff, but I would like to see the ministry take a very constructive approach to trying to take advantage of the generous offer of the credit union and, at the same time, see the improvements put in place that are very much needed there. Could I ask the minister to comment on that proposition?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Out of the construction funds that we have, we don't fund, at present, performing arts spaces in any secondary schools anywhere in the province. Where they are being constructed, they're being done by community-school partnerships. I'm very pleased to hear that the credit union in the area is interested in participating in that sort of initiative. Depending on the sort of contribution they're making, the sort of space that we're talking about -- whether there's a multipurpose room or whatever -- it may be part of a solution to one of the problems that the school is facing. I would advise the member that performing arts space by itself is not funded for any secondary school project through this ministry. There are a number under construction in the province, and those are done, as I say, with the partnership of the community.

I want to commend the credit union for its interest in participating, and I'll make sure that the ministry staff include that in their discussions with the boards about the nature and scope of the project that we're looking at for this school.

As far as tangible signs this year, I've already said that there's money for planning this year. There's no money for construction in this fiscal year. That will be a decision for the capital budget in '98-99 or subsequent years. I'm not sure that I can offer any comfort to the credit union that there would actually be an addition -- concrete laid or something -- this fiscal year. There clearly will not be, for the larger project.

The other issue the member asked about was the extended day and its application to schools that draw from a more rural population. Here again, we realize that one size does not fit all. As the member referenced, I discussed this extensively in estimates yesterday and in preceding days, and I think we covered it fairly well. Let me just give a couple of examples. In my own school district, we approved some planning for an addition to College Heights Secondary in the riding of Prince George-Omineca. While it is in a northern district, it draws its students largely from within city boundaries, where transportation is good and things are not too difficult. I expect that extended days will be relatively easy to implement in that environment. Clearly there are different issues in the school in Enderby, and that is really one of the foci of discussions between the ministry and the school board.

G. Abbott: Just so I don't leave the minister with a mistaken impression of what's being proposed, I used the term "performing arts centre." I do want to clarify that what I think is in mind here -- and I've seen the plans -- is not sort of the rural equivalent of the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts; rather, this is something fairly basic. Let me tell you about the current situation.

I toured the school with the principal last fall. Currently the theatre classes are conducted in one of the oldest portables on the site; it's a fairly ramshackle thing. Because they don't even have a cafeteria, they don't have any place to do anything along the lines of a play for fellow students or anything like that. So I expect what will be put in place. . . . I know the plan is to have it as part of the current school structure, based on a reorganized school and that kind of thing. It's not a stand-alone facility; it will be part of the school. I'm sure it'll be a facility that could be readily used as a classroom or for purposes other than a theatre. But it would provide them with an opportunity which they don't have now, which is to do something with the school or with the community outside of, as you can imagine, the rather inadequate portable that they're currently working with. So they're not looking for anything dramatic or particularly expensive.

This is something which is basic, and I'd really encourage the ministry to try, in every way they can, do let the Enderby and District Credit Union express their generosity through this particular project. So I do want to emphasize that. Does the minister wish to respond to that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate that we're not talking about the Queen Elizabeth 2 or a theatre or anything in Enderby. I will undertake to make sure that the member is kept informed of discussions between the school board and the ministry on this issue, because I know it is of some interest to him.

G. Abbott: There are a couple of other schools, and, as I understand it, Shuswap Junior Secondary is proceeding. I gather there are certain logistical issues that are in the process of being sorted out, but I understand from the ministry that the renovations are going to be completed in the '97 calendar year. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Some redesign is being required as a result of the new standards that we put in place for unit costs and space. We expect that work to be completed, special project approval to be granted and construction to get underway probably in the fourth quarter -- in the January-to-March period of this fiscal year.

[ Page 6225 ]

G. Abbott: I'd also like to ask the minister for an update with respect to the status of planning or other work at Sorrento Elementary School.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This project is not part of our active plans at present. It will be on the projects that I'm sure the school district will be bringing forward for consideration in 1998-99.

[3:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .celebrating my birthday.

G. Abbott: Oh, that's right. I wished the Minister of Municipal Affairs a happy birthday earlier, so I extend the same to you now. Happy birthday.

School district 83 is an amalgam of the former Shuswap school district and the former Armstrong-Spallumcheen school district. Could the minister bring me up to date in terms of whether the specific goal of that amalgamation -- i.e., cost savings -- has been achieved to date and what in the ministry's estimation has been saved by the process?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, as we have gone through the amalgamation process, we have tried hard to listen to school boards' concerns about phasing in the efficiencies that we expect to get. Therefore last year -- even though the PERC report recommended a target of, I think, $16 million for reductions -- we didn't require any from school districts. This year we are, but not all, again. For example, we are looking at an overall reduction in that district of some $373,000. District-based reduction for amalgamation would include about $250,000 on administration, though we are phasing it in. This year we are providing a one-time offsetting $180,000 grant to the district, recognizing the difficulties of transition. That will be gone next year, so we're phasing it in gradually. Similarly, there has been an issue about amalgamation of district services for special education, aboriginal education. That's a matter that the funding review formula has on its plate for review with all districts this fall. This year we preserved both. Whether that continues. . . . I'll be receiving recommendations from the funding review committee either late in the fall or early in '98.

G. Abbott: This question may be related to the minister's last answer, and maybe he can just build on it if that's the case. I understand that in the case of school district 83, there is a problem in terms of post-amalgamation -- of administering the two collective agreements which are in place in those areas. It's my understanding that because of the difficulties of trying to blend them, or not being able to blend them, there is going to be some cost. I think the estimate is around $80,000 in terms of top-up to deal with that. Is this an issue that is common in other recently amalgamated districts? Does the ministry have a policy to address the problem, if in fact it exists?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an issue that has arisen in a number of amalgamated districts. Some have made a lot of progress towards going to one collective agreement -- for instance, in Trail and Castlegar. They have been successful in doing that; others are administering two separate ones. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of BCPSEA, the employers council for the public school system, working with the districts and the unions involved to seek solutions and to make sure you get harmonized as quickly as possible. Clearly, in terms of the teacher collective agreement, one hopes we'll be making more progress towards that as a result of the '98 negotiations.

There's just one other point I want to raise. Staff have advised me that I have a clarification to make here on Sorrento. We have approved a minor capital upgrade. I'm not sure if that's what the member was referring to. That is for this current fiscal year, to upgrade sewage disposal and storm drainage in the amount of $600,000. That project is approved and will be proceeding.

G. Abbott: I'm actually delighted to hear that, because that was one of the concerns that certainly was advanced to me forcefully when I visited that school. So I am very pleased that that's happening, because it is very necessary work that needs to be done. There are, however, some planning and construction challenges beyond that, in that Sorrento is a very rapidly growing area. I do hope that the ministry is able to come to grips with the challenges of that growth in the relatively near future.

I have just one more area that I'd like to briefly canvass, as it has been raised to me by administrators in the school district and others in Shuswap, and that's the area of accreditation. Now, I'm sure this has been canvassed elsewhere in estimates. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Ruthlessly.

G. Abbott: Ruthlessly, I'm sure. But could the minister just briefly bring me up to date on that in terms of what's proposed for the Shuswap in terms of accreditation? It may well be the same as the rest of the province. Again, I apologize for not being able to be here for the discussion of accreditation. Perhaps the minister could just briefly bring me up to date on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have information on which schools are expected to go through accreditation, either complete the second year or begin it this year in that district; we don't have the information here. I'd be pleased to have staff provide it for the member. The accreditation program continues. It's been reviewed; it's been simplified. Budgets are in place in the '97-98 year to enable continuation of accreditation.

G. Abbott: I would appreciate that information when the minister is able to provide it. I thank the minister for his answers to my questions today.

S. Hawkins: I think I'll start off with conveying to the minister birthday greetings from myself as well. With the greatest amount of respect, I hope he doesn't celebrate too many more birthdays in the Legislature here, especially in the dead of. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the current session, she means.

S. Hawkins: In the current session -- well, in the middle of summer. I'm hoping we move to a system where we're not working through the summers here, so he can enjoy his birthdays with his family.

I'm sure the minister is quite aware of the situation at Kelowna Secondary School in my riding. I'm sure he's well 

[ Page 6226 ]

aware, because he's heard from not only myself but parents, students, administrators and community people. The headlines are quite disturbing. Of course, they get faxed to me. I'm hoping the minister gets copies; if he doesn't, I'm willing to share mine with him.

You know the headlines: "Secondary School Unsafe," "KSS Still Waiting for Safety Cash," "NDP Neglects Schoolwork." I don't think all the blame can be laid at the feet of this minister. I understand that the planning for this school started ten years ago. But I'm glad this minister is the Education minister again, because I understand the planning continued under his tenure last term, as well, and continues now.

I'm concerned that it finally had to come to a crisis point before it was given a good look. I understand that over $2 million has gone into planning for a new school. It wasn't until there was a letter from the assistant fire chief that said, "The children attending this school are at an unacceptable risk, should a fire occur" that anyone took a really good, hard look at what was happening here.

I took the opportunity to tour the school in the spring, as well as other school facilities in my riding. Frankly, I was appalled at the condition of this facility. I believe that KSS has one of the best academic and athletic records in the province, but somehow we've failed our kids in providing them with an environment for learning. The school, I believe, was not built for 1,700 students, and I think they're expecting 1,800 kids there next year. It doesn't have the hallway capacity; it doesn't have the washroom capacity. I understand that members of the public who come to this facility and use the school for other activities complain about this; it doesn't have fire exits or wheelchair exits. I think we have failed our children in providing them a safe environment for studying.

I understand there was a bylaw passed last night, and the money for upgrading the school came through. But my concern is that we have been planning for a new school for ten years, and I understand that for ten years this school was on the priority list in the Ministry of Education. Now what we've done is we've thrown more. . . . I understand that about $90,000 was spent on a new boiler for this school. We're spending another half-million to upgrade this school, upgrading the fire alarm and emergency lighting system, building three new fire exits, widening the stairwell in the technology building and providing wheelchair exits.

I understand that because there was an expectation that there was going to be a new school built, the moneys that were allotted to the school were spent on programs or other projects. Upgrading and structural repairs weren't done, because there was a new school promised. I guess at a certain point we have to carry through on what we promise.

For ten years these folks out there were at the top of the list for a new school. And now, when it's at risk, when the fire commissioner is going to close the school down because it's not safe for our kids to be there, we are throwing another half-million or more dollars that I think could have been better spent in upgrading a facility that we don't even know will be used. We are looking at another facility now, hopefully, that we need to spend money on to study, to see if it's going to be safe and appropriate for kids to go there.

I would appreciate the minister explaining, first of all, why the school was neglected so long, why we had to get into this position. Does he believe that it's good money being thrown after bad, spending it on this school to upgrade it? Why wasn't it done earlier? Why did it have to come to a point of crisis before anything was done?

We are now working, apparently, on the upgrades for this fall. We hope the work will be done before the kids get in there on September 2. I believe the school board went ahead, made plans and got the contractors lined up before the money came through, because regardless, they had to make provision for the children to be in a safe facility this fall. We couldn't have 1,800 kids left out in the cold, so they had to do something. I would appreciate the minister's comments.

Hon. P. Ramsey: When I toured Kelowna this spring, I talked to both the school board and Okanagan University College about the KSS replacement and how we were going to proceed with it. The school board indicated that they were quite committed to the joint project with Okanagan University College and that this is the avenue that they wished to pursue. They saw this as a real opportunity. Okanagan University College was equally enthusiastic, so shortly after I visited the city I sent up senior officials to meet with both the school board and the college to make sure we understood the scope of what was being proposed. We have now provided them with funding to get on with doing a detailed study and evaluation of how it might work.

[4:00]

Let me also say -- and I want to make it quite clear -- that I don't think anybody thinks this is a facility that should continue to be in use indefinitely. It's clearly a building at or near the end of its usable life. That's why the planning is proceeding with the joint effort of the university college and the school district to get a new KSS in place.

S. Hawkins: I understand that there was money being allotted to study the OUC campus site on K.L.O. Road. From my understanding, there seems to be quite a bit of concern over that facility the way it stands right now. There are environmental concerns, facility concerns, gymnasium concerns and all kinds of stuff. First of all, I want to know how much money the minister has committed to this detailed study in finding out the appropriateness of using this facility.

Hon. P. Ramsey: To do some of the preliminary scoping work both for the K.L.O. site and then for the university college, looking at its north site. . . . There's some planning there. In addition, the school board is also looking at the disposal of other assets and doing some of the costing of what that would bring in. So it's quite an elaborate planning process involving two institutions, this ministry, land swaps and a whole bunch of things. The total amount committed to it, both for the post-secondary side and the school district side, is around $150,000.

S. Hawkins: When can we expect a report, and when can we expect that these kids will get a new facility?

[ Page 6227 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the difficulties that we're having is that we don't actually own the report. It's being done by the district and by the college. Our anticipated date of receipt is the end of the summer. The member asks: so what happens then? In part, it depends on what the report says; as a matter of fact, in large measure it depends on what the report says. I assume that the report will say that this joint venture is an avenue worth pursuing, in which case we'll be talking about how we move towards a detailed planning site, disposal, acquisition and all the other elements that we need to get in place before we go to tender and get construction underway.

On the other hand, if one or both of the two parties say, "No, we don't like this; we should go back to the other way," then we've got a whole different set of issues to deal with. In any case, I recognize that this is a high-priority project for 1998-99 and beyond.

S. Hawkins: I'm speaking on behalf of parents and students who have called me, and I know the minister has received a stack of letters from me that were addressed to the Premier -- I sent a copy to the minister -- from students who are quite concerned. It's a sick building, and I know that the minister has said he's been through it. It's terrible; it's appalling. I've said before that it's barely being held together by paint. One of the gymnasiums is now condemned.

I think it's time to start moving on things. If a report comes this fall and we're not going to get any action for five years, I don't think that's acceptable. The minister will be hearing from me very frequently if that's the case, because I think the parents and the students expect something to happen here. The community is quite concerned, officials are quite concerned, and the administrators are quite concerned. What I hope I'm hearing from the minister is that he is very concerned.

I heard him use the term "high priority," and I place it as a very high priority. So I'm really hoping that the students won't be disappointed. We hope to hear some good news this fall. I hope I don't have to came back here every year and remind the minister that this was promised as far back as ten years ago. It was promised, certainly, when he held his tenure in the last government, which was also an NDP government. He's facing the same situation again in his tenure as Education minister this time. I will wait with bated breath for the announcement of a new facility or an optimal solution to this very serious concern that students and parents and people in the community raise.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just to respond very quickly, I do hope that the member isn't grilling me on Kelowna Senior Secondary on my birthday next year. I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of the school and the students and the parents. This was a school in rough shape, I suspect, 25 years ago.

Just a very small bit of personal information. The member may have had some contact with my ministerial assistant. He graduated from KSS; I think his father did, too. We recognize the necessity here. If it can help at all, I will see if senior officials can be available late in the summer, if it is helpful to the school board and the college to have them meet again to advance this discussion to make sure we're on track with getting a report done, getting sign-off and getting agreement on how we move forward.

S. Hawkins: I want to thank the minister for that, and I think that's a great idea. I want to say that the board and the administration of district 23 have just been exemplary. They are working very well, and they look for cooperation from the ministry, as well.

A. Sanders: Thank you to my colleague. I'm going to just touch briefly on one other area of cognitive lateralization, and then I'm going to go on to a different topic.

Specifically, what I want to discuss are the facts behind the inclusion of physical education in our education system. I do have a concern over this, because a number of the schools I visited and a number of the schools I have worked in did not have physical education on a daily basis, let alone on a weekly basis sometimes. At the school my children presently go to, they have access to the gym once a week. At an elementary level, I feel that that is inappropriate. I am assured that they have more physical activity, because they go on field trips and go to the swimming pool and these kinds of activities. The hours of physical education are collected and then used on an activity such as going up Silver Star for a day of cross-country skiing. Although I am very supportive of those activities, I think that that defeats the cognitive purposes that come from the benefits of exercise. There are several facts. First, daily physical activity results in the mental and physical well-being of the kids, and there's a significant amount of medical evidence for that. Fact 2 is that regular physical activity enhances academic performance. Fact 3 is that significant declines in both activity and fitness levels among Canadian children have recently been recorded. Fact 4 is that physical ed is not being perceived in the school system as an essential and unique part of a child's learning, which it truly represents.

Fact 5 is that there has been a significant decline in qualified physical education specialists and consultants on a nationwide basis -- and this is for Canada. Fact 6 is that considerable inconsistencies and inequities exist in physical education programs across the country, with physical education programs often being eliminated in many situations.

The information I provide in that fact list comes from the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association, which is a separate body of research and development of the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian association of sports medicine. I have asked them to provide me with some quantifiable information. They are doing a study now on the effects of physical education in decreasing decrements and whether there is any impact on learning in classrooms. They are undertaking that study at this point.

I bring this forward because I want the minister to have his staff look at the physical ed situation in our classrooms and schools and ascertain that we are in fact providing some kind of framework at the ministry level for this to occur and that we have some accountability that it is occurring at the school base-level.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I surely recognize the importance of it. I must say that I think students have had various experiences of physical education over the years. Some seem to really enjoy it, and it serves as an impetus toward lifelong activity and involvement in physical activity for many. On the other hand, some seem to run screaming away from it, and it takes them awhile to come back to physical activity. The challenge is to make sure that all children are seen as. . . . As the member says, involvement in physical activity is part of being well-rounded, and it definitely does have an impact on other activities.

[ Page 6228 ]

I just want to say a couple of things. The member knows it's part of the required curriculum in grades K to 10, but I don't know if the member is aware that there is a new IRP going into effect this fall for K-to-10 physical education. I'd be pleased to provide her with a copy of that and would really appreciate -- because I know of her interest in the area -- any comments she has about the IRP and its suitability. The BCMA and others have been involved in consultations around development of the IRP. A separate IRP is being prepared for grades 11 and 12, with an implementation date of 1998, and I'd be pleased to provide a copy of that one, as well, for the member.

[4:15]

I'd like to change topics completely now. I know that this is a topic of great concern to the minister, and it has certainly been an area where he's had to develop a certain amount of personal fortitude. I also feel, however, that because of the number of parents I have had bringing this issue forward to me, we do need to have some debate on the issue for the public record. This is the issue, of course, of the homosexual curriculum in the schools.

I'd like to start with a summation that I have written for the purpose of the public record, so that we have someplace to start, and then, from there, I will ask the minister some questions.

My summation reads as follows:

"During the early days of March 1997, the New Democratic Party AGM adopted a resolution called 'Emergency Resolution No. 9,' and part of the wording in that resolution was the promotion of homosexuality and elimination of homophobia. Several weeks later, on March 17, the B.C. Teachers Federation passed a similar resolution, but the original wording of the resolution was: 'That the BCTF create a program to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism within the B.C. public school system.' These two resolutions have touched off serious debate within communities and even between friends.

"I'd like to look at the issue from a critical analysis point of view. Our democratic system is built on the acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment. If we wish to uphold these democratic freedoms, we must teach our children to respect others and honour differences. Our obligation as parents and as citizens demands at least that much. There are few who do not wish to promote a school environment that affirms the dignity, individuality and respect of children. There are few who would not promote tolerance and unfettered acceptance of all children. There are few who would not demand a safe schoolyard for all children.

"Canada is a democracy of people of different cultures, religions, beliefs and values, and Canadians share an obligation to respect all children. Further, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child has stated: 'Every child has the right to preserve his or her identity as a member of his or her family, and the right to be free from interference with his or her family, honour and reputation.'

"We've done our best in British Columbia to activate these ideals. An example of such action is section 95(2) of the School Act, which states that the highest morality shall be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed shall be taught in a provincial school.

"Because of the demographic shift in British Columbia's population to a truly multicultural province, it was felt that daily Bible readings left out a number of religious groups in the classroom. The practice was discontinued through legislation, because it was seen to advocate Judeo-Christian views alone.

"Now British Columbia faces a similar conundrum. The NDP and BCTF resolutions have brought forward the term 'heterosexism.' Eliminating discrimination of any kind is an admirable and necessary goal. Hatred of gays and lesbians takes a terrible toll on children, but heterosexism is a term that has been seen by many to devalue heterosexuality and open the doors to a pointless debate on teaching the relative merits of one's sexuality. I urge all of us to be supportive of all children, no matter whether they are gay, lesbian, transgendered or heterosexual.

"B.C. schools have a career and personal planning program that covers the whole issue of discrimination and harassment. Children are taught to respect each other regardless of differences. Specific policies and procedures have also been developed in many schools to deal with harassment and violence.

"Although I do not tolerate discrimination against any child, I am also respectful of what has become known in our society as 'traditional family values.' Further, I am and always have been sensitive to the needs of the gay and lesbian community, especially to educate others that their orientation, in my mind, is genetic and not a lifestyle choice. I know that there was no choice involved for those who have gay or lesbian as part of their personal identity.

"Let us be aware that there is a difference between tolerance and advocacy. Let us use the good programs that we have to ensure tolerance in all children. But let us be respectful of their families and not use the school system for the advocacy of any value system over others."

What I think happened in 1997 for the B.C. education system, with respect to resolutions coming from the AGM of a political party and also from the AGM of the teachers' representation, was that an unnecessary conflict was ignited in British Columbia, in some cases, among neighbours. I feel this was unfortunate, in that I feel that in the school system we already had the ability to deal with this.

I found from discussing with many of the individuals, who had very differing opinions, that there were a number of trigger words in the discussion. In fact, it was the trigger words in the discussion that they responded to far more than the actual concepts.

My usual role in society has been that of a medical doctor. I treat many gay and lesbian patients. I have gay and lesbian patients who still come and see me from Quesnel and Kamloops, locations far from where I live in Vernon. They come because they feel I have an understanding of their circumstances. I also have quite a number of fundamentalist Christian patients. They too feel comfortable coming to see me, because they feel I have an understanding of their issues. One 

[ Page 6229 ]

of the things that was very concerning for all of these individuals who I would discuss this issue with was the trigger words that suggested, in some way, that their rights would be contravened at the expense of any other group.

What is important for us to do in the estimates of Education in 1997 is for the minister to have on record the opportunity to explain and outline how we in British Columbia, in the publicly funded education system, will be able to respect the rights of all groups, regardless of what their basic philosophy is with respect to this particular issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an issue on which I've spoken extensively and been quoted extensively, so I have no hesitation at all in speaking to the details of this issue in estimates here in 1997. Let me start with a premise that I think I and the critics share. That is that our schools should be open, inclusive, accepting, tolerant places for all our children, where they can expect to study and learn in an atmosphere that's free from discrimination or harassment whatever their religion, family background, ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation.

I use that catalogue because it's the catalogue that appears in human rights legislation both of this province and of this country. Surely, if we mean what we say in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in human rights legislation in the province, the last place we should accept intolerance, harassment or discrimination is in our public school system. I think that's a value that the member opposite and I share. It has been one of my touchstones in trying to deal with this issue.

The member is right that there were certain events outside the education system itself -- outside of the approved curriculum, outside of programs that go on -- which triggered a very acrimonious situation this spring. It's not clear to me, however, whether pointing to a resolution of a political party and a teachers federation that attempted to deal with a problem was the trigger or whether we should look beyond that at the situations that do exist in our schools.

I believe, regrettably, that discrimination and in many cases harassment of gay and lesbian students, or students whose parents are gay and lesbian, occur in our public schools. It occurs regularly. In my discussions with students around this issue, I have yet to meet a secondary school student who cannot tell me of an incident of discrimination or harassment around the issue of homosexuality. It is there; it exists.

Therefore, when we look at the efforts of the B.C. Teachers Federation, what we need to acknowledge is that the federation and its members, the 40,000-some public school teachers who serve our students day in and day out, also recognize this and recognized it in their resolution as a reality that needed to be dealt with.

The B.C. Teachers Federation, I must say, a decade ago proposed similar resolutions to deal with the issue at that time, which was concerned about racism in our public school system in the face of a rising visible minority immigrant population. As a result of their work a decade ago, there was a whole series of initiatives that took place in our schools to deal with harassment and discrimination around those issues.

[4:30]

The Surrey school board in some of its actions, even prior to this spring, indicated very clearly what its goal was in these areas. The so-called declaration of family rights is a document which was in existence before last spring. So we have a variety of things going on.

When I attended the BCTF convention and spoke to them, I spoke to their resolution and said that I admired their courage in raising this issue and seeking to deal with it. I did not endorse the specific wording of that resolution, and it's well to reflect that what that resolution did was not ask for curriculum changes in the public school system. It struck a committee of the Teachers Federation which was to examine this issue and report back to the BCTF convention in a year. That is all that resolution did.

In response to it, some of the groups that have been concerned about the issue, I must say, have seriously misrepresented what the BCTF actually committed to by that resolution. Similarly, I agree with the member opposite that there are certain trigger words here that have indeed pulled the trigger on intolerance.

I'm not sure they are all on the side that the member talks about. I agree that the term "heterosexism" is a trigger word. Similarly, the phrase "homosexual education" seems to come up constantly. I have said repeatedly, and will say it again for this chamber, that the career and personal planning curriculum, which encompasses the family life portion of it, is in place, and it will continue. These subjects have been included in that curriculum for quite a period of time, and there are no plans to further change that curriculum.

So we have a variety of things going on. Both sides feel that the other side in this dispute has been giving them some trigger words, and I want to mention just one, because this is, I think, going to the heart of it. It does go to the heart of the issue when you have a school board saying that a book that presents as a fact of one child's experience that the family the child comes from has two parents of the same sex should not be presented as what some children experience. And ordering its removal from libraries throws a bit of gas on the fire. That's all those books do.

When we have an organization distribute what they call a declaration of family rights -- which goes directly contrary to the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contrary to provincial human rights legislation -- and which says that any portrayal or discussion of the lifestyle of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered individuals should not be one that presents it as normal, acceptable or one which must be tolerated, that is a trigger, particularly if one is a gay or a lesbian.

So there are some forces out there, and I think the member said it accurately: there are few who will not demand tolerance and respect for all our children. But I must add: there are some, and their voices have been loud this spring. I think it is my responsibility as a minister to say clearly that I do not expect those voices of intolerance to be reflected in our classrooms and in our schools, that I expect the CAPP program to promote not homosexuality but tolerance and inclusiveness. I think it is my role as a minister to say that I expect school districts to adhere not just to the letter of the School Act and to the authority that they have but to the higher principles of the legislation and the morality of this province. Inclusion and tolerance are part of that.

I have recently sort of been attempting to say that emotions have been running very high on this on both sides. I have really been trying to raise this level of discussion. I hope 

[ Page 6230 ]

my comments today are at that level, rather than at the sort of finger-pointing or blame-placing level. I think the member opposite, in her comments, has done the same.

Regrettably, I think this is an issue on which that sort of statement and that sort of stance are going to be required in the future. We recently passed in the main chamber legislation which addresses the issue of rights and responsibilities for gay and lesbian couples. It raised many of the same issues and many of the same bits of correspondence.

I think at the heart of it, just to get a bit -- I don't think philosophical, but at least -- thoughtful about it, is the distinction that the member raised. Those who see discussion of the fact that a segment of our population is homosexual or transgendered or bisexual as a threat have at the core of their belief system an idea that sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice somewhat like deciding what colour shoes to buy. On the other side, and as the member said, I think that the preponderance of scientific and medical evidence suggests that sexual orientation is far more like hair colour, that it is something that is genetic. It's not something that one changes easily.

I think that is at the heart of it. As I discussed this issue -- sometimes, I hope, calmly, sometimes with some heat -- on open-line shows and in newspaper articles and in the range of forums that I've been involved in, that is what it comes down to. I think the more we can raise the level of discussion and talk about this really significant part of our population, which is saying very clearly that the discrimination and harassment of the past are no longer acceptable, the more we can raise that to a thoughtful level of discussion, the better it will be for our children and for the schools that they study in.

A. Sanders: A thoughtful presentation by the minister, and I appreciate his words. Some of the things that the minister said I wish to comment on, because I do feel, again for the public record, that it's important to many, many people in our province. I would stress that I think it's important to people in our province who have absolutely no interest in either point of view.

I think, in terms of being a parent and having talked to many constituents and others, that this is an issue that, quite frankly, I really didn't have any opinion on, on either side of the fence and found that this all of a sudden had become -- at a time when there were many other issues that I really wanted to talk about and felt were important -- the focus, for a very long time, as the only issue in education that people were willing to or wanted to spend time talking about.

A couple of things that the minister said are exceedingly important. . . . He used the example of the legislation we passed, Bills 31 and 32. Because he used that parallel, I will use it as well with respect to the subject discussed in the estimates of Education, which is curriculum in schools relating to gay and lesbian students. With Bills 31 and 32, the differential in how people get things done from a political or ideological point of view is probably a good paradigm for the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House.

What I mean by that is I truly feel that all children and dependent adults should be looked after in our society, and they should be looked after within the family from which they come. The composition of that family, as the minister and I both know. . . . I really don't know anymore, in my general practice, how to define a family. I often will have mom and boyfriend or dad living with his mother as the female in the family looking after the children. I have every other combination under the sun that you could think of. In fact, quite unusually, my kids wonder why we have a mom and a dad in our family and not some combination other than the original combination. I see that as just a changing, evolving process within our society.

What I'm mindful of and what I would always try to do with this issue -- and the official opposition tried to do exactly this; this is the exact paradigm we're talking about -- is that I would prefer the vision of inclusiveness. I would have preferred, in Bills 31 and 32, the phrase "domestic partner." I would have preferred that, because what it would have done is change the voting even more than the voting that we saw. In other words, it would have provided an opportunity for almost everyone in the entire Legislature to buy into giving kids and dependent adults the rights they deserve in our society and making sure, from a legislative point of view, that in fact that was the case.

Using the word "spouse," because of its connection to the sacrament within the Judeo-Christian aspect of society -- which is large in our society and which in some ways is growing. . . . I won't get into the philosophical aspect of that, but it is growing because people are counting on less and less, and they often do subscribe to a more traditional philosophy than even their parents did, especially when their parents come from the generation that I come from. I find quite often that the children who I'm dealing with in my medical practice, in the classroom, who come over to play with my kids, are coming from quite a more traditional viewpoint than I am. There is a psychiatric term for that. It's called "reaction formation," and there's a good reason. It allows individuation of that generation and differentiates them from their parents. There are many, many reasons why this is occurring. Suffice it to say that it is occurring.

[4:45]

Although that is straying slightly from this topic, it's a very important paradigm in that if you know what the trigger words are, either you want to get through your principle and to heck with the rest of the world or you get it done in a quiet way and have the same result come through.

We would have not changed, in any way, shape or form, the implications in Bills 31 and 32 by using different phraseology; we would have still provided those benefits for all people. Yet that was turned down. When I look back on how we all go about our business, I've found that in the end sometimes, the route of inclusion. . . . Although it won't create a revolution, do we need a revolution at every stand and every day?

Right now I'm looking for people to buy into the public education system, to keep their kids in the system, to want to know that their money is here to support public education and not look for alternate mechanisms for educating kids. I'm 

[ Page 6231 ]

looking for people to not get totally fed up with us because we are taking vast amounts of their tax dollars and using them for what they see is proposing or promoting opinions that we have, as elected officials, or in fact that our sponsors, our benefactors, our minority groups, feel are the issues of the day.

With those words, I don't choose to speak much more on this topic, although I must tell the minister that in the House, at some point this session, I will have to present a petition from a large number of communities. It probably includes up to 8,000 names of individuals who are very unhappy about curriculum in the schools that has to do with gay and lesbian education. I feel that these people, too, have the right to have that presented, and I -- or whoever's riding the petitions belong to -- will do that on behalf of individuals. They are British Columbians, and their rights need to be heard.

I would also be happy to present a petition from gay and lesbian groups who wish to support any movement of curriculum towards this issue.

On that note, other than to recognize that the letters have not just come from people of Christian backgrounds. . . . They've come from a very large number of the ethnic backgrounds, the Gurdwara Society and a number of the other ethnic communities who are very, very concerned about these issues with respect to their particular religions. Suffice it to say that many of these groups make up very large percentages of some of our education districts.

I'd like to see whatever we do in this be done in a thoughtful way, in an inclusive way, in a way that avoids trigger words such as heterosexism, homophobia, choice, lifestyle choice, promotion and tolerance. If those words were eliminated from a lot of the conversation from both sides of the fence, that would probably get rid of 95 percent of the bee stings that the minister will get when discussing this particular issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I thank the member for her comments. I want to respond briefly to a couple of points, because we probably have similar experiences in some ways. As she describes it, she has a very traditional family. I do too. My wife and I celebrated our thirtieth wedding anniversary earlier this year, and our children have grown up in a two-parent family, one of either gender. As the member says, that is a significant portion of families in British Columbia. But boy, we sure have a lot of different models for families out there than that.

I think the real challenge for us when we talk about family values is not to draw that line around family too narrowly and recognize that when we're presenting those values -- either to others or in our schools -- the families that children come from really do differ greatly. That's why I was so concerned when I had a school district saying: "Some sorts of families should not be presented as what children come from."

It's not unlike presenting families of different races as abnormal. I grew up reading Dick and Jane books in which you wouldn't know -- I was in the United States at the time -- that 10 percent of the population of the States was black. You did not see them in the material that was presented in school. Times have changed greatly.

I guess the only thing I would really disagree with the member on is that I think at times it is imperative that those who wish to advance the cause of inclusion -- the cause of tolerance and respect for diversity that we say we adhere to in the core laws of this country -- take the risk to advocate for it firmly and publicly. As the member knows, I acted on that principle, which I have followed most of my life, in my own town, and this led to a call by some for my recall as an MLA. Let me say, very clearly, what I found. I found a forum being held that promoted what I felt clearly was an attitude not of inclusion but of exclusion, not of tolerance but of intolerance. I had a clear choice: to attend that forum or participate in a forum which was held outside that said this is no longer acceptable. I chose to participate outside. I chose that because what was being said inside was that homosexuality was "An Attack on God by Satan" -- to quote the headline in the Prince George Citizen. I do not believe that promotes tolerance or inclusion in any way; nor do I believe that it is appropriate to have that as the basis of curriculum or action in school. So there are just a couple of things there. I needed to put that on the record, too.

The other thing I'd say is that our children are growing up in the schools, and there's a vastly different attitude toward those than when I was in school. When I talk to my 17-year-old daughter, she knows which of her classmates are gay or lesbian.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I surely didn't when I was 17. The whole idea of sexual orientation simply didn't occur to me. So the idea that there are various sexual orientations -- that people live different sexual lifestyles -- is there as part of our children's common experience. One of the things I found most amusing was that at the time when people were writing to me saying that I shouldn't present a homosexual orientation as normal, Ellen DeGeneres was leading the ratings on TV. Millions of British Columbians were watching Ellen "come out" as a lesbian and say: "This is normal for me."

I think the member is right. It is a time when there is some "reaction formation." I think our challenge is to move ahead, and I welcome the member's leadership. I think she is right. Her points regarding trigger words make a lot of sense to me. I think all of us need to talk about respect and inclusion, because those are the elements of the foundation that I believe we need to promote and build into our education system.

The Chair: I wonder if the member will permit me a brief comment before I recognize him.

Hon. P. Ramsey: You're not allowed, Chair.

The Chair: Oh, it was going to be a non-partisan comment.

Interjection.

The Chair: In that case, I will recognize the member for Delta North.

R. Masi: I understand the Chair's concern that a teacher has to get up and talk when the opportunity comes.

I would like just to make a few comments on this but in a different area than the member for Okanagan-Vernon. However, I do agree with her totally on this.

I would first of all like to comment on the Surrey school district. I think sometimes the Surrey school district takes a bit of a beating in terms of its actions. But I'd like to point out to the minister that when we're talking about racism, around ten 

[ Page 6232 ]

or 12 years ago Surrey school district was on the cutting edge of racism prevention policies. We had at that time a young man by the name of Inder Mehat appointed in the district. I was very much involved in the situations that were going on at the time. I guess probably the difference was that they were very physical -- incidents were leading to violence, etc., and things like that were taking place. It was the beginning of how we deal with this.

This is what I'd like to comment on: how do we deal with this situation? Inder, of course, was a special appointment in the district and developed a number of programs throughout the district. It was very clearly laid out how the topic of racism would be addressed throughout the district. Gradually it filtered down through the district. I believe that Mr. Mehat eventually ended up in the ministry at a certain time. I'm not sure if he's still there or not.

I would like to point out that in terms of the minister's comments at the BCTF meeting, it's not so much the actual words that were used by the minister -- it never is -- it's the perception that comes out. I think what we had here was a perception of: "Oh well, this is good. Now we will just go ahead and teach all about homosexuality in the schools throughout British Columbia." That's probably not what the minister meant. I'm glad I heard today exactly what the comment was. I think what we have to look at is the difference between curriculum materials and resource materials and at who in fact will be delivering the information and the level of expertise of the teachers or counsellors or whoever are involved in this. Because in my dealings. . . . I still associate quite a bit with the teaching fraternity or whatever it's called now -- there is no word.

The credibility of the career and personal planning program has not yet reached the level where it's an effective program. Now, I hope it does, but it's not there yet. There are various names it's called, and I won't mention one here -- and you all know what it is. If we are going to support this sort of program, I think it's really important that the implementation of the program is carried out much like the implementation of dealing with racial problems was.

[5:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his thoughtful comments. We do intend to devote additional resources and effort to implementing the CAPP program. It is regrettable that we chose a series of letters that rhyme so readily with other words.

I take your point about general acceptance of parents. Incidentally, one of the interesting surveys that I think was reported in the press not too long ago was one the BCTF did, when they asked questions about inclusion in curriculum of factual information about sexual orientation and promotion of respect and tolerance. They found that over 80 percent of parents and families said: "That should be included; that's the right thing to do." I think if we avoid some of the extremes of rhetoric and keep our eye on the prize, we can make a significant difference in our schools and, hopefully, have gay and lesbian children and children who come from families where there are gays and lesbians be able to study and learn, free from some of the circumstances that now are too often the norm.

The member talks about physical violence and physical abuse. When I talk to gay and lesbian youths, they tell me it's a part of their life in and around school, and I don't think that's acceptable. It is sort of like what it was like around the racial issue in Surrey and elsewhere a decade ago, and I don't think it's there anymore for the race issue. We need to make similar progress on this one. I agree with the member about the Surrey school board. I hope that the citizens in Surrey look to the board to return to more responsive concern with some of their major concerns about schooling. Regrettably, in the last little while I think they've been leading with their chin.

A. Sanders: A have a couple of comments that I think are important. Not to rise to the defence of any individual or group but at the same time to also give the impression of being able, hopefully, to look intelligently at a number of different points of view, we must recognize that when the press reviewed the situation of Surrey and the school board and the banning of books, there were several issues. One is freedom of speech, which is guaranteed for us in our Charter. Second was the unwritten issue that within the School Act it has always been the custom of school boards to pick the literature from a reference point of view that was in their libraries, and we all know that -- within their budgetary allowances -- school boards have chosen what information is going to go into the school libraries. I know that in the past they have made many decisions to say, "With this amount of dollars, we are going to buy the Dick and Jane book, and we're not going to buy the Jane and Jane book," or whatever other choice was appropriate and pertinent at that time.

I think that the minister must remember that part of the problem was whether or not the minister was treading on the rights of the school board under the School Act, and whether there was a necessity to differentiate the rights of the ministry and the rights of the minister in the legislation under which we all live. Unfortunately, these two issues became conglomerated because of the high volatility of the issue surrounding the fact that this was information that fed into the other circumstance, which was the development of potential curriculum on gay and lesbian children.

So there was quite a bit there that was involved. We could probably go on for hours discussing this issue, because it is a very important issue. It is also an issue that will, depending on how it is dealt with, bring temperance or intemperance; both are possible. I urge the minister and those who advise him to bring forward any curriculum on any issue with the respect of all British Columbians, regardless of who they are and what their belief systems are.

The Chair had passed me a note, just saying that he wanted to comment on -- although he was unable to -- the high level of intellectuality in this debate and that he found it refreshing. You sort of wonder sometimes, hon. Chair, what the rest of the debate around here is like. Thank you, hon. Chair -- a very important issue. Although it may be more boring to some, it is important to me that we discuss some very significant issues. I do not want to take up more time than is absolutely necessary to deal with the important issues of our curriculum. I will move on for that reason.

I'd like to talk briefly about francophone education. There are some connections between this issue and our previous 

[ Page 6233 ]

issue. We're looking at the tremendous inclusion of Canadians in looking at value systems -- once again, a group that is certainly a minority in British Columbia but certainly not a minority in other areas in Canada.

In this session of the Legislature we also have Bill 45, which we will be discussing in the very near future, which is an amendment to the School Act to include and provide the francophone community of British Columbia with management and control of francophone education, as deemed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Earlier in this session, the Francophone Education Authority legislation was introduced. What it basically does. . . .

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

The Chair: Member, just a word of caution. Legislation before the House is not for discussion or debate in the estimates.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have no intention of discussing the legislation, other than saying that we are doing two simultaneous activities.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that if the numbers justify the existence, education in the French language reflective of French culture should be provided in B.C. by the B.C. francophone minority. There are approximately at this time 1,600 students enrolled in this program in the '97-98 school year.

Funding is provided through the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. I believe we spend around $11.2 million in startup costs and $3.2 million in support costs. These were the figures from earlier in the discussions. The federal government also provides $3.2 million.

Most FEA schools operate out of existing schools in various districts, although the new legislation would enable them to own their own land, as is the case with standard school boards. Children may attend a school operated by the FEA if their first language is French and if they have received primary school in French or in Canada -- or anyone who is presently being educated in French as the language of instruction.

Concerning our francophone education and the status in B.C. at this point, could the minister outline for me how many schools are involved in the francophone program, to generally just make sure that my facts are correct and give me feedback that the information I presented is in fact the right information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Currently the Francophone Education Authority has 1,648 students enrolled in ten school districts. They have four stand-alone schools in Chilliwack, Vancouver, North Vancouver and greater Victoria. In the other school districts they share space in other schools with other programs. In addition, there are 1,083 students enrolled in francophone programs provided by school boards in other areas of the province.

A. Sanders: In other areas of the estimates, we did go through the per-student cost and the other aspects, and therefore those were the only questions I wanted to add. Just for the record, I would let people who read these discussions know that there is information that we discussed -- on Wednesday or Thursday last week, I believe -- that would fill in the additional ancillary information that people would need to look at these proceedings.

I'd like to talk a bit about school boards, just to fill in the questions that we have not indirectly dealt with when talking about other areas and how school boards fit in. The rights and responsibilities of school boards are outlined in the School Act, and this is the legislation that governs all of those involved in public education in B.C. By law, these boards must submit a balanced budget. This year the minister suggested that a deficit budget with a plan to the future would suffice for some school districts. Could the minister explain how many boards did bring in a deficit budget and what the rationale was behind allowing them to do so this year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: None submitted a deficit budget. I approved a number of school board deficits for the '96-97 budgets, which they are going to be retiring in the '97-98 budget year. I hope that was clear; I was a little confused in my accounts. Let me just say it very quickly and concisely: I approved deficit budgets for '96-97 -- the last fiscal year -- in 15 districts. All these districts have said that they'll retire that deficit in the current fiscal year.

No districts submitted a deficit budget for '97-98, nor could they, because it's not allowed by the School Act. If they do come in and have some extraordinary circumstance during the school year, I said that we'll look at that. But again, the requirement will be for approval to be linked to a plan to retire that deficit.

A. Sanders: It doesn't have to be here, but could I please have a list of those school boards that have a deficit budget for '96-97?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School district 5, Southeast Kootenay; school district 8, Kootenay Lake; school district 36, Surrey; 39, Vancouver; 44, North Vancouver; 52, Prince Rupert; 57, Prince George; 60, Peace River North; 62, Sooke; 64, Gulf Islands; 69, Qualicum; 70, Alberni; 85, Vancouver Island North; and 87, Stikine.

[5:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think the distribution is statistically interesting. The total of all of them is around $5 million.

A. Sanders: In those budgets that were submitted -- and I suppose this goes with an interest I had in how Victoria originally planned to balance their budget -- how many of those boards did cut programs, such as music programs, in order to balance their budgets?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have that data. I think Victoria reduced some of its expenditure but surely preserved the program.

A. Sanders: I'm interested in the possibility in the future -- and this interrelates to some of the discussion we had last night about how shortsighted school boards must be, because they do tend to have to be reactionary as opposed to visionary. . . . Has there been any interest by the ministry in multi-year funding that would give boards an indication of funding over a two- or three-year period? I feel that this could enhance predictability and alert us to problems without locking the ministry into an indexed system. I have an interest in whether the minister had looked at this kind of funding program.

[ Page 6234 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts do have some ability to do multi-year planning. They know multi-year capital plans, because we do have this rolling five-year process with them. They do have projections for enrolment in their districts. On the provision of finances from the provincial government, we seek to involve them in discussions as constantly as possible about the financial circumstances of the province and projections for budgets in current and coming years. We can do that to a point. The point at which you can't do it, of course, is the prerogative of the Legislature to debate and approve budgets.

We can do indications of where we think the financial circumstances of the province and budgets are going. I've done that with the school trustees, and I think our debates in this chamber have reflected that. But as far as specific numbers, those are something that are clearly the prerogative of Legislature, and the law pretty clearly says that you commit to a budget for a year.

A. Sanders: As the Forests minister says, the government can do anything it wants. But I think that several-year planning would be very, very helpful, not just for capital projects but for operating budgets in other areas.

Just a couple of questions, following on boards, on the amalgamated boards. My review of the amalgamated boards showed quite a significant differentiation in the viability of those boards. There were some areas that were doing very well when I looked at them earlier in the year. There were other boards that hadn't really got to the same level of functioning. Basically, if you looked across the spectrum in the mid part of the year -- April, May, June of '97 -- there were some that were talking and getting along and involved in higher-level intellectual conversations with others, and there were other boards that were still at the stick-and-stone-throwing, drag-you-around-by-the-hair stage of communication.

What I want to know from the ministry is: what is the current status of the amalgamated boards in terms of their functionability? Are they being given any additional help in terms of conflict resolution and other things to deal with the wounds that have been created by the amalgamation process?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we probably anticipated that there would be some difficulties in this amalgamation process. Any time you ask two organizations to become one, you can expect to experience that.

We have been attempting to provide amalgamated school districts with assistance through the ministry's field services branch, which we talked about earlier in estimates. It can provide assistance to either amalgamated or unamalgamated districts in seeking regional cooperation and implementation. Second, in some cases, we have actually undertaken to hire facilitators to work with boards to sort out issues that seem to be very sticky for them. We did that in the Terrace-Kitimat area. Third, BCPSEA, the employers' group, has been providing assistance to amalgamated boards, particularly in the area of labour relations and, as we discussed earlier, the rationalization of different contractual provisions.

A. Sanders: I wonder what kind of second-look procedures will be in place for some of the amalgamated districts with respect to whether or not. . . . I want to know if there were serious problems with certain amalgamated boards, in that, from the geographic point of view, it just isn't working. Are there any provisions to reverse that amalgamation or to provide some other kind of interim funding or to do whatever else may be necessary in order to increase the functionality of the amalgamated unit?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are no plans to reverse amalgamation.

A. Sanders: Then I would urge the minister to look carefully at some of the geographic units that have become amalgamated in terms of how those boards are being asked to function from transportation points of view, and so on and so forth. I was astounded to talk to a number of board members and recognize that when they were meeting in this part of the district, they all went on the road, provided there wasn't an avalanche. And then, when they had to meet in that part of the district, they had to take the ferry and then drive. They did everything except the pony express. Somehow this didn't make tremendous sense in terms of whether these boards should actually be a board, or whether there shouldn't be -- from a geographic point of view -- several different areas. So I hope that the minister will look carefully at functionality and make sure that with the geographic factors involved, the children in these areas are getting the service they deserve in terms of board status.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Travel seems to be a fact of life. Prince George district sometimes holds its board meetings in Valemount, which is at one extreme of that district. It's a four-hour drive in good weather from Prince George. They've done so for, I think, 20 years now. There are, of course, advances in technology that can allow electronic communications and perhaps even opportunities for video-conferencing in large districts, which can involve -- I hope -- members of the public from a wide-ranging district in seeing the deliberations of a board, alleviating some of the difficulties that distance causes.

A. Sanders: I'd like to go on to a separate issue. This is the issue of school-based management. To quote a report that we discussed briefly last night, the Korbin report stated: "The current literature about educational reform emphasizes the need to devolve greater authority and responsibility to the school level." Based on the information available on school-based management, what has the minister done to respond to the current literature with respect to looking at school boards and devolving authority?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Ultimately the district decides its administrative structure and which of those functions it wishes to have at the school level. This is one of the topics being discussed very actively at the roles and responsibilities forum, and one expects that this will be one of the topics that will be addressed to some extent in the discussion paper coming out in the fall.

A. Sanders: I think that with looking at the meta-analysis on school-based management, it will be something that the ministry may be wanting to give more direction to, especially with the potential for cutting administrative staff. One of things about school-based management is that it requires, by definition, a strong leadership role from the principal. If we have cuts in education or more principals in the rowing forum as opposed to the steering forum, which we discussed last night, then we're going to find that this important way to look at school structure and function may not be attainable in B.C.

With respect to administrative design and the report that's coming out on the ministry's discussions on this aspect of administration, will the minister perhaps be looking at an appropriate number of reporting levels or models for the ministry to give boards, to show them how administration might best be achieved in an archetypal school district?

[ Page 6235 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: While we don't provide specific models to school districts, the ministry does have a variety of activities underway that I think will inform the discussion on how management is organized. One is the roles and responsibilities work that I've already referenced. Second, we have the office of the comptroller general going out and talking to school districts about how they do accountability within their district, and I think that report will be useful.

In addition, the working group on administrative CAP and administrative efficiencies is grappling with the idea of how you measure effective administration and then accountability in strict financial terms. So there are various ways the topic is being approached.

A. Sanders: I'd like to briefly touch on community use of schools and to address two issues. In question period earlier this session, we talked about the increases that had occurred in building rentals for the Beavers to hold their meetings. Many other community groups like to hold meetings in schools if they can, and fee increases were precluding that in some cases. To the minister: what's the follow-up on the fee increases to community groups? Are there are any directives from the ministry as to what should occur there, or is this left within the auspices of the school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is within the purview of school boards themselves. As I think I said -- I'm not sure whether I said it in question period or outside of question period -- one would hope that schools would be open to continuing some of the role they have served as a focus for community activity. Clearly there are some community groups that have the ability to pay some of the costs of keeping a school open beyond normal hours: maintenance, electricity and whatever. I would hope that school boards would have the ability to develop policies that distinguish among groups which are well able to contribute to such costs and those which are not.

[5:30]

There is a school in Cultus Lake that recently wrote one of my colleagues a letter. They are under the definition of "community school" -- there are apparently somewhere between ten and 30 in the province. They were asking for the member to look into the Ministry for Children and Families in terms of their funding circumstance. I was completely unaware of what this concept was. Could the minister just fill me in?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are about 75 community schools across the province. They are funded through the Ministry for Children and Families; that's where the budget is right now. The total budget is $5 million. The concept is to involve a variety of community groups from outside the school in delivery of education and support of education. I think the member will have an opportunity to debate this more fully with the Minister for Children and Families.

A. Sanders: These schools are not funded through the Ministry of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It has been transferred to the Minister for Children and Families this year. It was within this ministry prior to the establishment of that ministry. The concept is clearly to bring in groups that are concerned about education, whether it's native groups, social equity groups, parental groups, seniors or others, to support the education of the children in the school. It involves a variety of programs; it's tailored by the individual school. As I say, I think the concept could be explored in detail with the Minister for Children and Families.

A. Sanders: I thought all schools were under Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, they are funded through this ministry. There's a top-up grant of $75,000 per school for community schools, and that is administered through the Ministry for Children and Families.

A. Sanders: Home schooling is one of the alternative schooling options that parents choose for their children. From the statistics I could find -- the '94-95 school year -- 8 percent of school-age kids were being educated at home. In the past, there have been concerns as to the accessibility of information for parents who are schooling their children. Today the information age has helped to fill this gap in access. Now a multitude of things to use, such as the Internet, can help link parents and children with a great deal more information than in the past. Some of these programs are well orchestrated and remain closely tied with the provincial learning outcomes.

One such program, the Nechako busing, offers children an alternative or home-based program that's flexible and tailored to their own needs. Students who have distance education programs or who are non-traditional learners have the support of this program. School district 56 is making good use of this, as we've already discussed.

In terms of home instruction, I want to just get an idea, basically, from the minister if those figures are correct and the percentiles are correct. I'd leave it at that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think they discussed various aspects of this issue already -- enrolment figures. Let's distinguish clearly. Home instruction or home schooling is quite different from distance education. I think the member understands that. I think the member understands the support that home schoolers get from the school they register with, whether it's a public school or an independent school. We've gone through the numbers that are enrolled, both linked to public schools and linked to the independent school system, and discussed the reasons for that sort of schooling.

A. Sanders: I've just a couple of questions on special needs. What I want to look at here specifically is not special education. Special needs constitutes primarily those classes where one or two students are integrated into a regular classroom and are separate from learning assistance classes.

There are the special needs outlined by SPARC, the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., in 1996. This group surveyed 1,528 teachers and contacted 252 of those with respect to special needs, to get the following results. They found that integrating students was well received by the majority of teachers interviewed. They also found that success in the integration was dependent upon a clear understanding of the student's need, an understanding of the knowledge by the teacher working with the student, and an adequate and appropriate resource environment to help with integration. It would be reasonable to conclude that mainstreaming has been reasonably successful in British Columbia.

[ Page 6236 ]

What would be the results of this same survey in a classroom in 1997-98, with the budget cuts made by the minister? I conclude that the results of this same questionnaire may be markedly different with only one year's difference, because many districts have cut teaching assistants, special education aides, support teachers and district resource teachers. My question to the minister: is the minister concerned that mainstreaming will suffer serious consequences through cuts in the '97-98 budget? The adequate and appropriate resources to help with integration are less available than they were in the previous budget year.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I'm not. The budget for special education goes up again this year to meet the needs of children that have been identified by school boards as requiring special education. Inclusion remains the preferred option for providing supports to special needs students. We work with school boards to find what the best practices are, both educationally and economically, for delivering those services.

A. Sanders: One question on catchment areas -- this is something that I think is going to come up in September again. I had a letter from Lynn Doull in Surrey. She basically says to the minister that her planning will take place for the kids at her. . . . "It is because of poor planning that we as concerned parents of Don Christian Elementary now find ourselves presented with the possibility of revisions to existing catchment area boundaries. Not only are we concerned that boundary changes are being considered but also the alleged changes to the conditions for cross-boundary attendance."

She then goes on to discuss how her children have been at this school for a number of years. Her concern. . . . She says planning for schools needs to be done. Are there going to be any cross-boundary alterations in the near future for their area? I'd ask the minister to respond to that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: A decision on catchment areas and cross-catchment area enrolment is in the purview of school boards. This occurs every year in school districts across the province -- revision of boundaries or changes to policies.

A. Sanders: So the minister and ministry staff do not have any say in this. Okay.

I just want to ask a couple of questions about something that the minister and I dealt with earlier in 1997, and that is the international math and science test comparisons. There were some important results from those comparisons that I'd like to ask two questions on.

The results in a simplified form were as follows: Canada's grade 3 and 4 students are above average compared to students from other countries in math and science; the relative performance of Canadian kids slips significantly between grades 4 and 8. Our grade 8s, the 14-year-olds, did not perform as well; we've seen this on two successive testing periods. Math and science are key subjects in the skilled workforce or in the new economy, where technology will be rapidly expanding in every sector. Children in B.C. matched the Canadian mean; Alberta posted the best results in science and math, significantly better than the other provinces. On the international exam, Japan and Korea had the strongest performance in both subjects overall, and incidentally, also the largest class size.

From these results, just a couple of questions that I think are important. Now that we've had some time to look at these results and to have interpretations of the statistics, what has the minister found most significant in these results that he will be acting on within the Ministry of Education this year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the results are actually positive for B.C. students. Among provinces in Canada, we're second in math, first in science -- even in front of Alberta in that. I recognize there's always room for improvement. One of the things that the ministry is going to be focusing on is doing the implementation work on revisions in both the mathematics and science curriculum, which will be introduced and implemented in the next two years. So that's the focus of some of the work, and we expect that will improve these already very good results.

A. Sanders: How will these changes be measured?

Hon. P. Ramsey: By the next round of testing. This is an ongoing project.

A. Sanders: Any indication as to what happened in Alberta to have them do so much better than us? Any comments from the ministry staff?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll get a seminar together and discuss it. We have no particular magic answer here. One of my assistant deputies suggested: "Because they had more girls."

A. Sanders: We know that to be the case; the statistics show it.

I think basically what parents what to know is. . . . If we're putting more money into education, especially in math and science, we want to get results back. I think that that is really a good note on which to end our discussions. I want to thank the minister and his staff for their time. I also want to thank them on behalf of all of those who participated for the excellent briefing that the deputy and the staff provided for this critic, as well as for the cooperation I've received from the minister.

[5:45]

Vote 22 approved.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $5,782,590,000 -- approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

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