[ Page 7607 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. P. Ramsey: On behalf of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I invite the House to help me welcome 52 grade 5 students from Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary School in Vancouver. They're accompanied by their teachers: Carole Read, Jacqueline Siller and Margaret Vis. Would the House please help me make them most welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: I have two introductions today. The first one is a gentleman who served on the school board with me in Prince George, Austin Howard Gibbons, and his lovely wife Bernice. The second one is two young women who gained notoriety today by riding on motorcycles -- but the real notoriety of Mary Gregory and Julie Allen is that they're two wonderful staff members from my office here in Victoria. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today are five members of the High Risk Project Society. They are Sandra Laframboise, Deborah Brady, Don Crowe, Stacey and Tamara. I hope that the House will make them welcome.

M. Coell: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a good friend of mine that I met some 25 years ago at Colquitz Junior Secondary School: the mayor of Saanich, Frank Leonard. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the honour today to introduce two guests on behalf of myself and also my special assistant, Glen MacInnes. Visiting the gallery today is Ann MacInnes, Glen's mother, and her friend Phylis Barnes. They have been on a trip and have ended up here in Victoria. I invite all my friends and colleagues to help me make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: It's my great pleasure today to be able to introduce a great artist to the galleries. As you know, the sign of a great artist is that he can make something wonderful out of nothing. This artist can make beautiful pots and cups out of nothing but dirt -- and made a cabinet minister out of me. Hon. Speaker, Sandy Korman.

C. Clark: Joining us today from Port Coquitlam are two very hard-working B.C. Liberals: Mr. and Mrs. Sperill Chambers. We also have joining us another. . . . He had better be a hard-working B.C. Liberal; he's my brother. His name is Bruce Clark. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have visiting with us the new consul general from the United Kingdom, Mr. Ian Kydd. Would the House please make him welcome.

P. Calendino: Today in the gallery is a good friend of mine, a constituent and a great supporter. This man likes to describe himself as a semi-retired businessman, but he's busier now than he has ever been before. He started his work in life as a carpenter's apprentice, only to quickly move on to be a project superintendent for very large construction companies. Then he moved on to form his own construction company. Today, in his semi-retired life, he has changed completely from that to become a cookbook author and a travelling TV and radio personality. Would the House please welcome the author of the cookbook From Uncle Bill's Kitchen, Mr. Bill Anatooskin.

Hon. P. Priddy: I have two introductions, if I might. In the precincts today there are 65 grade 3 students, with 15 parents and three staff, from Brookside Elementary School, which is in my riding. This is a school that, because it's Heart Month, has done a jump-rope-for-health event and raised $5,500 for the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They have just recently been awarded a multicultural award for their activities. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

The second introduction is of people I met this morning. I think many of them are here in the gallery with the Health Minister's Advisory Committee on Mental Health, which is made up of family members, consumers and front-line workers in the field of mental health. This is Mental Health Week, and those folks need all the support they can get. So will the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: I have a very special guest in the gallery today: my cousin, Hugh Cassells, is here with his wife Joan. They are from Ayr, Scotland, where they own and operate a large china and gift shop called the Acanthus. It's just over the bridge in Ayr, for anybody going there. I might just say that this is their first visit to British Columbia. With them is my wife, Aileen Randall. I might also add that my cousin Hugh has a conservative streak in him, but he feels that Tony Blair is doing just a fine job in England. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: There are two guests I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today: Molly Bain and her daughter, Yvonne Bain, visiting here from Gibsons. Would the members of the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Thorpe: Visiting the Legislature today I have a young constituent by the name of Anthony Giannotti. Since it's Youth Week, Anthony has a question for the Premier that I will be pleased to ask during question period. Would the House please make Anthony welcome.

Oral Questions

BRIEFINGS ON NCHS CHARGES

Here's the problem: the RCMP says that they called Mr. Gardiner at 4 o'clock -- a full hour after Mr. Gardiner says he got the call and after all of the NDP MLAs had a memo on their desks telling them about the charges. My question is to the Attorney General: can he tell us if he has undertaken a formal investigation to determine the source of what I think is a serious breach of confidentiality?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was briefed at noon that day. In consultation with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, I invited the Deputy Premier, since the Premier was absent, to be at my office at 3:15 that afternoon. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General was a few moments later than 3:15, and the Deputy Premier was in my office being briefed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General and left my office not before 3:35. It is important, however, to remember that when special

[ Page 7608 ]

[2:15]

I as the Attorney General, the Deputy Premier as the acting Premier, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General have different obligations on confidentiality, but I cannot be held accountable for information that is out there in the public domain before 3 o'clock to all of the accused and their counsel.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: But here's the problem. Mr. Gardiner says he got a call from the RCMP at 3 o'clock. The RCMP say they didn't contact Mr. Gardiner until 4 o'clock; there's a disparity. The question is: how did the NDP caucus members find out about the charges before they were in fact made, formally sworn and made public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have indicated before, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General testifies to the fact, that there was no way that the breach occurred from the Attorney General's office or the Assistant Deputy Attorney General's office. I have indicated, through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General's advice, how this information was out there before 3 o'clock with all of the accused or their counsel.

Now, if Mr. Gardiner received information at 3:57, I believe that the hon. members would be wise to check with the police. I am now told. . . . I haven't officially checked with the police, nor would I. I am told that the time has been revised to 3:39. That doesn't help the hon. members. However, these things are in the public domain; they were in the public domain, in the hands of the accused's counsel or the accused, before 3 o'clock, before the Deputy Premier was briefed -- which briefing concluded . . . he left my office by at least 3:35, if tnot after.

RESTITUTION OF FUNDS TO NANAIMO CHARITIES

Three years ago Ron Parks calculated that as at 1988, those charities in Nanaimo had been deprived of at least $1.9 million. My question to the Premier, quite simply, is this: does he think he can buy forgiveness of a $1.9 million sin with a paltry $60,000 today?

Hon. G. Clark: My position has been consistent from that day -- absolutely, entirely consistent. Any moneys that were diverted to the NDP which should not have been diverted to the NDP will be paid back by the NDP. We have called a public inquiry. It sits. I hope it can move expeditiously. If it's found that any money was diverted to the NDP, to any NDP association, to the party in any way, it will be paid back with interest.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Speaker, that's not what the Premier said, because I was sitting in the room with him when he made the statement. I got his release; I got his transcript.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

M. de Jong: He said that he will ensure that full restitution is made by the party to any charities who were deprived of funds they were entitled to -- period, point blank. And he's trying to weasel out of that now. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . .by being cute with phraseology.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Hon. member, your question is. . . ?

M. de Jong: Only this Premier, after all of these shenanigans. . .

The Speaker: Your question, please.

M. de Jong: . . .would have the people of B.C. believe that his party is somehow the victim. The victims, hon. Speaker, are in Nanaimo.

The Speaker: Hon. member, order, please.

M. de Jong: My question to the Premier is this: will he stand here today and fulfil a commitment to pay back $1.9 million, not a paltry $60,000 that he thinks will let him off the hook? Because it won't happen.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I noticed that it was the same question, only louder. I don't know if that's. . . . I know that's a tactic the member likes to use.

What is absolutely clear. . . . I've been absolutely consistent, and I want to say it again: any money that was diverted to the NDP. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Any money that was diverted to the NDP in any way, by the NCHS or otherwise -- that was taken from charities -- will. . . . Full restitution will be made by the party. I look forward to a public inquiry which gets to the bottom of all of this. I look forward, hon. member, to ensuring that all this information is there, so the party can make any restitution which it should as a result of actions that took place 15 to 25 years ago. I also look forward. . . .

[ Page 7609 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I look forward to the public inquiry investigating all political parties, including the Liberal Party, which had lotteries during the same period and did not remit to charity, according to the Parks report. The Leader of the Opposition said he would investigate. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and yet we have not seen any evidence of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. G. Clark: All of this will come out during a public inquiry. Any money that was diverted in the past by the NCHS or otherwise that should have gone to charity. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and went to the NDP will be paid in full restitution, with interest.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I might take this criticism from those members opposite if they once stood up and supported Youth Options B.C. and the $22 million we're spending on youth employment.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: We know it's gone from A Guarantee for Youth to an option, and the option is 18.6 percent unemployment under your watch. It's broken promise after broken promise. This government spends millions every day on phony advertising, and yet it cannot support 32 co-op students. Will the Premier stop the phony advertising and hire back the 32 co-op students that lost their jobs two days before they were to start?

Interjections.

The Speaker: There will be no answer until there is quiet.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, this government has done more for young people in the last three years. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Now listen. I know that you want to exploit that young person for political gain, member, but listen to the answer.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen, hon. members. We have frozen tuition fees for three years in this province. And are you in favour of that? Are the members opposite in favour of the tuition freeze? The answer is no. We have increased funding for post-secondary education institutions. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. G. Clark: . . .in this province, and those members oppose that. We provided $22 million to create jobs in this province for young people, and those members oppose it. We have the largest Summer Works program in British Columbia history this year, and those members oppose it. They stand here and say that we should have big tax cuts for big business every single day -- paid for by cuts in public services. . .

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and then they cry crocodile tears for students that they have never once stood up in this House to defend.

ISLAND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND FISH HABITAT

Hon. D. Streifel: Again the members ask questions that aren't particularly under the purview of this ministry.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, hon. Speaker, it becomes increasingly difficult to be civil to this uncivilized opposition. We have members over there that forget they have to move when they've signed a covenant. I get sick and tired of the ongoing battles in here. I'm attempting to answer a question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I'll just take my seat.

The Speaker: Hon. members, interjections do not help.

On his first supplementary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

[ Page 7610 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to take this opportunity, if I could, to answer the member's question. Indeed, in the splitting of responsibilities between the Ministry of Fisheries and myself, there are some ongoing habitat-monitoring issues that are handled by this ministry.

We have an agreement related to the Vancouver Island Highway project to divide the Vancouver Island Highway area in half, between DFO and ourselves. So our conservation officer service monitors a portion of that; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does the monitoring for the other part of that. I'd be happy to meet with the member to discuss the monitoring work that is going on to ensure that there are no negative impacts from the construction activities.

Petitions

Tabling Documents

[2:30]

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mental illness can affect anyone, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of culture, regardless of economics. It's likely that all of us know someone with a mental illness. Despite the progress that's been made, our society continues to marginalize people with mental health problems. What Mental Health Week does is help to raise the awareness of the barriers facing people with mental illness in our society. If you are a person with a mental illness, you will continue to have trouble gaining access to jobs, to training, to volunteer work and to recreation and social opportunities that help you to achieve your goals in life and contribute to your community. We need the special skills and talents that people with mental illness have to offer to their communities, and we have to find ways to ensure that we receive them.

This year our government launched a new seven-year mental health plan that outlines our commitment to improve mental health care for British Columbians. The goal of this plan is for every person with mental illness to receive the care and support that they need. The plan provides for more mental health services, more emergency and 24-hour care, and more affordable housing to support recovery. We've targeted $125 million over the next seven years to put this plan into action.

Earlier this week I announced the development of an additional 200 supported independent-living units for people with mental illness. Today I'm pleased to announce that a provincial advocate for British Columbia's mental health system will soon be in place. When appointed, the advocate will monitor how the mental health system is performing, so that systemic issues that affect people with serious and persistent mental illness, and their families, can be resolved.

As a result of our mental health initiatives, more British Columbians with serious and persistent mental illnesses will be able to enjoy a higher quality of life and participate as full members of our society. Family members will receive more of the support they need -- because they are often and actively involved in their spouse's, son's, daughter's, sister's or brother's treatment and support. We all need our families lifelong. For people with mental illness, families are often the only people in their circle, and we need to ensure that they have the support they need.

This week I'm asking everyone to just take a moment to think about mental illness and the personal commitments we can all make to support the lives of people in British Columbia who live with mental illnesses, and their families.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to respond to this very important issue, and I think it is very important to recognize National Mental Health Week and to raise awareness of mental illness.

As the minister states, it is true that there are many barriers facing people with mental illness, but it's also true, unfortunately, that many of the barriers in our province have been created because the voices and needs of the mentally ill were neglected, forgotten or ignored.

Just before Christmas, I took the opportunity to work alongside front-line workers in Vancouver and Kelowna for about a week and a half. I wanted to get a firsthand perspective on and knowledge of some of the health issues affecting people out in the real world, including people with mental illness. I worked with street nurses, with the police, with ambulance workers, in hospital emergencies and with other front-line health- and service-provider groups. I must say that the experience was eye-opening, to say the least. Front-line workers informed me that between 25 and 50 percent of people on the street are suffering from some form of mental

[ Page 7611 ]

In the past year, I travelled around the province visiting communities, and I heard consistently that mental health services are sorely lacking. As the government knows, in June 1997 the provincial health officer, Dr. John Millar, said that B.C. needs more than 3,500 more beds of supported housing for the mentally ill than it has now. I'm pleased that the minister made one announcement this week. But these services, as the provincial health officer says, are sorely lacking.

For example, the central Vancouver Island health region bought and renovated a home for mentally ill seniors, at a cost of more than $400,000, but the region doesn't have the $200,000 necessary to provide for the 24-hour setting. And up north in Smithers, three and a half years after a psychiatric holding room was built for more than $30,000, patients with severe mental health problems don't have a safe place to stay. It's these kinds of things that we are watching, to see what the government will do.

They announced a seven-year mental health plan, and we will be watching closely as this government implements that plan. The mentally ill and their families need action, not hollow promises. We really hope that mental health issues will be recognized all year round and not just one week of the year.

Orders of the Day

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today and watching during question period -- I just happened to notice him -- is an old friend of mine and a very good friend of working people not only in the Victoria area but around the province. He's a past vice-president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union and an activist in the Victoria Labour Council -- and the labour council generally in the greater Victoria area. Adam Ustik has joined us today, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

On section 1.

G. Plant: The first few provisions of Bill 10 amend the Correction Act, and they do so to make possible what are called shared-facility agreements. My first question is: in practical terms -- in commonsense, lay terms -- what will a shared facility be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Looking specifically at Vancouver -- which is what this envisages at this point -- it would be the lockup facility which would be in the same place where the general corrections inmates are. That would be a shared facility.

G. Plant: What's the character of the inmates? We're talking about people who would be in the city of Vancouver jail overnight or for a few days, pending charges -- and also, I assume, remand people who are being brought into downtown Vancouver or staying there because their trials are taking place in Vancouver. Is that basically it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Are we talking about an existing physical structure -- that is, are we talking about the jail at 312 Main Street -- or are we talking about a facility to be constructed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The new beds will be created by renovating existing cells and adding two new floors to the provincial courthouse at 222 Main Street.

G. Plant: Is the work underway, or is it work that is awaiting the passing of these amendments?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is underway. The facility would be functioning by early 1999.

G. Plant: Has the minister already entered into the agreement with the city of Vancouver that is contemplated in what will become section 13.1(2)?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an agreement between the city of Vancouver and Corrections. That's why the renovations and additions are taking place. This agreement, obviously, would be. . .once the act is in place, and then it would be redrafted to meet the terms of the act.

G. Plant: Is there a correction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I apologize. Sorry -- it's my confusion. This is an understanding and an agreement to have the additions and renovations completed. Once they are completed, then there would be an agreement as to how sharing would take place, vis-à-vis the costs and the like. That agreement would be made under the legislation.

G. Plant: In addition to the construction cost and whatever sharing may exist around that, there will, of course, be the issue of how it will be administered, how Corrections and the city officials will work together to operate the facility. Is that the distinction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: In terms of the costs and, I suppose, the anticipation with respect to the administration and management, can the Attorney General briefly outline. . . ? Is it 50-50 in terms of cost-sharing? What, in the broadest possible terms, does the Attorney General hope for in the comanagement arrangements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think both jurisdictions would be saving money. The province would be charging about $5 million in operational costs over six years, approximately, for taking care of the prisoners that otherwise would have been taken care of by the city.

[ Page 7612 ]

[2:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This arose out of the special needs in the city of Vancouver. There are arrangements in place in other parts of British Columbia where municipalities pay for the province to look after prisoners during lockup period. There are ongoing discussions with respect to those matters. Municipalities have had concerns over the years. Who knows -- that might need to be streamlined as well.

G. Plant: One of the political contexts that could surround this is the issue of downloading to municipal governments the cost of operating the provincial corrections system. Would I be right in saying that it is no part of the Attorney General's intention in respect of these amendments to undertake that kind of a process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not at all. In fact, even in this instance, we are taking on their prisoners, and they would be paying something for it.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General describe in general terms the intention behind this amendment? Maybe I should say in this context that we may have a bit of a discussion later in the bill about integrated releasing authorities and the idea of a single releasing authority, and about changes to the Parole Board. Here I think the focus of my interest is simply in the changes being made in relation to the length of temporary absences -- in those parts of this amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I understand correctly, the hon. member is interested in subsection 15(2), which is simply to bring our temporary-absences authority in line with the federal Parole Board.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: The amendment here is an amendment to the Infants Act, which the explanatory note says will increase "the monetary limit. . .within which the Public Guardian and Trustee may consent to or make a binding agreement for a settlement in respect of an infant's claim for unliquidated damages." The increase is from $10,000 to $50,000. I take it that what's happening here, in respect of claims that are between $10,000 and $50,000 -- that is, below the new limit -- is that the court's approval will no longer be required, but rather it will be enough to get the public trustee's approval. Is that a fair summary?

Interjection.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could just clarify why this amendment is being brought forward at this time. It's not clear to me why that's happening.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I understand correctly, this legislation is enabling only; it would provide the authority to charge fees for inspections of various things here -- which the hon. member probably understands better than I do. But I think the real issue is that the industry is seeking and wanting and desiring more inspections than we currently do. I think that for cost-recovery purposes we need to impose certain fees. Obviously, that would be done in consultation with the industry.

J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the minister that I do have a letter to the Minister of Agriculture from the B.C. Milk Producers dated April 21, and they seem to be supportive of the legislative change on a conditional basis. I think they're looking for assurances in two areas. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister is able to confirm in this Legislature for the B.C. Milk Producers their concern that the government may get completely out of milk inspection and dairy farm inspection. I wonder if the minister could just reassure us that the current level of inspection, which is really the bare minimum from a public safety perspective, will be maintained by the government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that yes, it will be maintained.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that assurance.

I think the second concern is. . . . Again, is the minister able to provide the assurance that this legislative change will not be used to impose a service charge on the bare minimum of inspection that is currently being done by the government? If we could get that assurance from the minister, we'd appreciate it.

The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct.

J. van Dongen: I think the final question is: is this legislative change motivated by an intent by the industry and/or the government to put in additional inspection services for which farmers could be charged? Is there any intent at this time to increase the level of inspection through outside agencies?

Hon. C. Evans: Not on behalf of the government, hon. member. But should the industry make such a request, we would consider it at that time.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

D. Symons: The question I'm asking will involve sections 8, 9 and 10 -- they seem to go together. I wonder if the minister can confirm. . . . I feel that the main emphasis in these three sections is that you're adding the word "emissions." At this date, since we've had the AirCare program, I'm

[ Page 7613 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I read the notes correctly, I understand that the objective is to implement mandatory roadside inspections for heavy-duty vehicles. For that purpose, this amendment is required.

D. Symons: Then there's section 8. I guess it will be section 216(1)(a)(iii) in the act when it's passed. When we include all areas of British Columbia, would that also include AirCare being expanded for automobiles as well as heavy-duty vehicles throughout the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not the intent at this time.

G. Plant: I want to pick up on a question that my colleague asked a moment ago. I was interested to hear the explanation of the purpose of these amendments in the context of roadside inspections for heavy-duty vehicles and then to look at the actual language of the amendment. The amendment would allow, I believe, regulations to be made requiring inspection as to safety, emissions and repair of prescribed classes of vehicles. The statute itself does not limit the regulation-making power to heavy-duty vehicles. It allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- I assume that's the regulation-making authority here, or the minister, or whoever it is -- to make regulations with respect to any of a number of classes of vehicles, presumably including heavy-duty vehicles.

I guess the first question is. . . . I take it that it's the government's intent, when prescribing classes of vehicles under the new powers given by this provision, to only make such prescription in respect of heavy-duty vehicles. Otherwise I wonder why the language is so broad, given the stated intent of the amendment.

Hon. H. Lali: We already have it for safety and repairs. This amendment allows it to be extended to emissions of heavy-duty vehicles also.

G. Plant: Am I right that the amendment would allow cabinet to require emissions inspection in respect of all kinds of classes of vehicles? There's nothing in the actual text of the amendment that limits it to heavy-duty vehicles. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I need to get out section 216(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and I'll find the answer there.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yeah. I mean, the point here is that it looks to me that the government has an interesting policy idea -- probably a good policy idea -- around heavy-duty vehicles. But since you're going to give yourself the power to do new heavy-vehicle emissions testing, why not ask for the power to test the emissions of all vehicles? Then you won't have to come back and defend that later.

Hon. H. Lali: We already have the power under AirCare to be able to do that with the other vehicles. So this amendment allows it to be extended to heavy-duty vehicles.

G. Plant: Is the power that AirCare has to test emissions for other classes of vehicles found somewhere in the Motor Vehicle Act or in some other statute?

[3:00]

G. Plant: Which statute?

Hon. H. Lali: It's section 49(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that helpful piece of research.

To come back to the government's intention here, just to get closure on it, then, the government's entire intention here is simply to allow it to conduct roadside emissions inspections of heavy-duty vehicles. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, but also to issue tickets to those who are not in compliance.

G. Plant: I'm still interested in the ability of cabinet to prescribe other classes of vehicles that might be subject to testing in this way. I'm grateful for the minister's statement as to the limited intention of the government in bringing these amendments forward, and those are all the questions I have.

D. Symons: I'm just curious too on section 49(2), which I have not read and won't attempt to search for now, so maybe the minister can just answer then. I had the impression when AirCare was brought in that it wasn't limited to automobiles only and that AirCare was testing vehicles per se.

Interjection.

D. Symons: It is. Well, I stand corrected, then. I'll wait until the next section.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

D. Symons: I note section 9 adds a section about what constitutes an offence. It now includes section 216(1)(a), which talks about the classes of vehicles that have been done. . . . So again, is this just strictly that you can now fine people who would have, let's say, emissions beyond the standards you're going to set?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, for heavy vehicles.

D. Symons: At present you don't have this authority for the heavy-duty vehicles. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Lali: That's correct.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

G. Plant: Perhaps I could impose on the Attorney General to briefly outline the way in which the B.C. Parole Board is being restructured here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is obviously a bit complex in terms of the structure. Let me just read from the note that I have. This amendment would restructure the Board of Parole

[ Page 7614 ]

G. Plant: Only a year or so ago, the Attorney General was announcing that the B.C. Parole Board would be disbanded. There have clearly been some changes in that policy intention. Why is the Parole Board being restructured in this way now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The way we are restructuring this would save us $250,000 per year -- about six FTEs.

G. Plant: Is the only reason for the restructuring to save the money and the staffing costs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not the sole objective. The additional objective is that -- as the cabinet would have the discretion to reappoint the chair after six years -- it also has some continuity. That's also important.

G. Plant: Let me ask this, picking up on something I talked about just for a second a little while ago. There is some discussion within the ministry about changing the traditional role of the Parole Board -- integrating releasing decisions so that, for example, releasing decisions which are currently made at corrections centres might eventually be made by the Parole Board -- or at least, for the time being, by the corrections centre working cooperatively with the Parole Board or some other agency. We saw earlier in this bill, for example, that the decision to make temporary-absence releases has been potentially transferred from the ministry to the board, so I think there's more going on here than simply trying to streamline the board. Perhaps I could try again and ask whether there are some larger policy objectives at work here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is more going on, and I thought the hon. member knew that, since we'd gone past section 15 of the Correction Act. Section 15 is section 4 of this bill, and section 15(5) of that is the delegating section. It would allow the integration of release, and some release functions that are currently performed by Corrections to be performed by the board, so that we work on an integrated basis. The decisions are more appropriately taken, and they are well thought out.

G. Plant: There's a difference between integrating decision-making on the one hand, which I think is maybe a fancy way of saying that the right hand and the left hand are at least talking to each other before they make a decision and, on the other hand, a single releasing authority, where you might, for example, have just one authority that makes all the releasing decisions. That might include decisions around electronic monitoring or things like that. I've sometimes heard the phrases "the integrated releasing model" and the "single releasing model," and that is the way the discussion takes place. Does the ministry have any current intentions to move to the single releasing model? If so, are these changes to the Parole Act being undertaken to prepare the way for those proposals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member knows, this is enabling legislation. There is no intention at this time to move to a single releasing model. We are working on an integrated model.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

G. Plant: I think I know what the intention of this amendment is, but perhaps I could have. . . . For the benefit of anybody who might ever be reading Hansard at some point and be wondering why we were doing this, am I correct that the Judicial Compensation Committee, which is discussed in this amendment, has in fact been appointed and is in fact doing the work which it is statutorily obliged to do -- more or less as we speak?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is the Attorney General able to say whether or not the anticipated date for the completion and filing of the report, May 29, is a realistic date as we sit here today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I understand that my officials have spoken to the chair, and that's a realistic date.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 11.

[3:15]

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

I. Chong: At the outset, I would like to say that during second reading we did give our comments on this bill and essentially, I think, gave approval or support of this, although we may have some differences as to whether it will accomplish the goals that it is intended to meet in terms of raising

[ Page 7615 ]

I do want to say to the minister that I appreciate the opportunity that he afforded this side of the House to meet with staff and have a briefing. It was most helpful. Subsequently, we have gone back, checked and read to make this process quite quick.

On section 1 -- for my benefit, just a technical issue -- the changes here state that it's to clarify that the cooperative association "may be eligible to be a small business as defined by the act." I'm just wondering whether that means that it is a small business strictly as defined by the act, but not a small business in the general terms of all other acts that incorporate the words "small business." As I see it in this act, small business only refers to the number of employees. It does not refer to ownership of any other kind. It does not refer to the level of income that a business earns or any other income tax effects that there may be. I just want to be clear that when we're talking about a co-op being defined as a small business for the purpose of the Small Business Venture Capital Act, it strictly means the employees.

Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. member for Oak Bay -- Oak Bay-Gordon Head, as I can't forget the other half -- for her kind remarks at the beginning of the question.

It would only apply to this act. Cooperatives have an opportunity, if they choose, to avail themselves of the provisions of this act.

I. Chong: That's what I thought, but I did want that clarified for the record. As I say, some of these things will be helpful in the future when we look back on this. With that, are there any provisions or exemptions if you go slightly beyond the 75 employees? In other words, is it that strict? I didn't know whether there was a process or an appeal of some sort of avail to someone if they end up within 10 percent of that -- whether there could be opportunities to go beyond the 75 employees.

The reason I ask is because in co-op situations, more than in other small businesses -- but it also could be in small businesses -- there are sometimes cyclical patterns in the work that's available. If you go beyond the 75 employees for a short term, such as three or four months for a cyclical kind of operation, a seasonal operation, would that preclude you from. . . ? Having entered into this agreement, would it preclude you from participating, or would you have to back off until you dropped back to less than 75 employees -- just to make sure that those who are looking at this, who are at that border, know whether they should apply or not, based on what they know their operations are?

Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the member's question, you have to be at 75 or below at the time of investment; if you go up later, that might be good, but that's not going to hurt you. It's the number at the time of investment that they look at.

I. Chong: What I'm hearing is that at the time the application is made, at the time a business or a co-op is wanting to participate, they have to have no more than 75 employees. If they expand after that, there is no problem whatsoever -- just to confirm that.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'll confirm that. Remember, the purpose of this act is to get some capital into small businesses so that they can grow. That's what we're trying to do, and that's why I gave the answer I did.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

I. Chong: Just a very quick question on this section. I note that subsection 3(4) is being repealed and substituted, basically to delete the latter portion of that section of the act. I am wondering, out of curiosity more than anything. . . . The act's subsection 3(4)(b) said: ". . . the amount of equity capital referred to in section 2(1)(d)." Was that a problem in the past? Why did that need to be deleted? I understand that this is housekeeping, but out of curiosity I wonder whether that was some sort of a hindrance to some businesses.

Hon. I. Waddell: This is to improve the management provision. Under the previous section, when they came in there were two aspects that they had to consider, and it got very difficult -- giving the tax credit and. . . . This simplifies it and makes it a little easier to do that. That's a broad-brush description; that's why it's in here.

I. Chong: As I mentioned earlier, I realize that it is housekeeping and it is to simplify. But my curiosity as to whether or not it was to simplify it. . . . In fact, that paragraph did prevent or preclude people or businesses from participating. Was that part of the reason as well? As I say, certainly it makes it simpler, but not only does it make it simpler. . . . If it in fact enhances the opportunity, that is a good thing. If it didn't create a problem before and it's strictly to make it simpler, that's fine too. I'm just curious about why we couldn't have worked with it other than in that way.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the reason for this is to let people know what they have to raise right up front, so it's easier for them.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

I. Chong: I want to assure the minister and staff that I won't be going through every section, just the first few. This is good practice, anyway, for the minister -- this being one of his first bills.

I note that the changes in section 3 are to ensure that the wages being paid are to employees who in fact regularly report to work in British Columbia, and I have no problem with that. But I didn't have the opportunity to look into this in the act. Section 3 says: ". . .the wages and salaries, determined in the prescribed manner. . . ." That is a phrase I am curious about. Does "prescribed manner" refer to something in particular?

I'll try to explain to the minister what I'm getting at. Sometimes in your businesses or co-op situations you have one or two major shareholders or employees who are earning substantially more than all the other employees. That person or those persons, being husband and wife, can have salaries paid to them that represent more than 75 percent of the wages. I'm curious about whether that has been a consideration and whether that would be a problem in the future. Should it not

[ Page 7616 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: You have to look at the regulations, and if you do, you'll find that there are two ways of calculating the salaries for employees. The actual count and where you take the total cost and divide by $29,000. . . . These are complicated in the regulations.

But let me tell the member a little bit about why this section is here -- how I understand it. The act sets out certain criteria that a small business has to meet to get funding from the Small Business Venture Capital Act. Under the current provision, the administrator must review the wages and salaries of affiliated companies to determine if a small business is eligible to receive the funding. This is unduly restrictive, we think, in the way it's set out presently. A small business could lose its eligibility under the act simply by being affiliated with, say, a successful export company that has marketing staff located outside of British Columbia, because there are certain provisions: a B.C. company and so on. The revised wording of this section still requires that a small business receiving financing pay at least 75 percent of the wages and salaries to B.C. employees. This requirement ensures that the financing is used to support B.C. employees, but it's a little clearer in the way it's set out.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 12.

MINING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendments of which notice has been given by me to the Chair.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed section 11.1,

(a) in the proposed subsection (2) by adding "any applicable higher level plan under that Act and to any" after "subject to", and

(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection:

(3) For the purpose of this section, the Chief Inspector of Mines, after considering practicable alternative means of access, may grant or refuse the written approval referred to in subsection (2).]

[3:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

D. Jarvis: The Chair has asked for approval of this amendment, I believe. As the minister has just dropped several amendments onto me, we are now talking about. . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not a great process guy, but here's the answer. I have tabled a number of amendments. As we debate each section, I will move in advance of each the amendment that I've submitted, and we can then debate that. So as we go through each of the sections. . . . Okay?

D. Jarvis: I interpret, hon. Chair, that we are now going to start at the first line of the bill and proceed through with the. . . .

We're now into the first section, section 11.1. I want to see if I can get some explanation from the minister with regard to the terminology in the coda -- what mining exploration is as far as he is concerned. My second question on that one section would be that I wonder if there is perhaps a typographical error here. We see that it limits the collection of bulk samples to less than 1,000 tonnes. Is that supposed to be 10,000 tonnes?

Hon. D. Miller: No, that number is the current number for annual production. We're not changing any of those requirements with respect to maximum tonnage for sampling purposes.

D. Jarvis: In the bill, there appears to be a 1, and then there's a blank, then zero, zero, zero.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's just a typographical error. Is that still the total amount for coal as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Coal is separate. It's a much higher number.

D. Jarvis: Is it 50,000 tonnes or somewhere around that area?

Hon. D. Miller: There is no cap for coal.

D. Jarvis: That's all the questions I have on that first section.

G. Plant: I have to confess I hadn't seen all of the amendments. I now see them. There are several amendments to section 1, one of which is to the proposed section 17.1, the compensation provision that was the subject of my earlier question.

[ Page 7617 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, the process. . . . I don't pretend for a moment to have any expertise with respect to the issue of valuation as it pertains to these kinds of claims, although I have read a brief prepared by someone who is very active in the field. There are several ways in which valuation is determined. It's a fairly complicated and specialized field.

It is my view that under that process, these kinds of issues would be dealt with in any event. But it was felt by some that we ought to be a little more explicit with respect to putting this amendment into section 17.1. I really think that if you look at the process. . . . I have experts here who are unable to talk in this chamber. It's my view that these kinds of issues are accommodated within the evaluation process.

G. Plant: Maybe I can pursue it one step further. If the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that the claim was acquired for speculative purposes unrelated to mining activity -- if the minister forms the view that someone has acquired a claim purely for the purpose of attempting to obtain the compensation for expropriation -- would that then deprive the claim-holder of the right to institute the arbitration process altogether? Or is that simply something that causes the minister, in the first instance, to refuse to pay compensation and then gives the claim-holder the right to continue to want arbitration?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the language would allow the minister to prevent that claim from moving forward. If that discretion is not exercised. . . . Let's assume, for example, that there's been no transfer of ownership of a claim. Or if there has been, it seems to me immaterial, with respect to the valuation question, whether the value -- if there is one -- goes to the purchaser or to the original holder of the claim. The process will determine what the value ought to be.

This is a pretty good message for individuals -- I'm not suggesting that there are any -- who might think that there is some advantage with respect to mining claims, if you like, as opposed to minerals.

G. Plant: Is the minister who is given the power under this amendment the Minister of Parks or the Minister of Mines? In that context, I direct the minister's attention to the fact that throughout the other provisions of the section, the language is: ". . . the minister responsible for the administration of this Act." Then that language is dropped when we get to what will become subsection (4). I hope there's no uncertainty created here, but I assume that the minister who is to exercise this power is the Minister of Mines. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

G. Plant: I suppose that if the minister were to exercise this power unreasonably, that decision would arguably be subject to judicial review. So there's always perhaps another avenue to raise a question in the event that there was one. Perhaps I could ask this, and it might alleviate any potential concerns. When the act was introduced, I think it was the minister's intention to communicate the fact that the mining industry and its organizations were supportive of the main provisions in the act. Was there consultation with respect to these amendments, and do these amendments -- this amendment in particular -- enjoy the support of the mining industry?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was consultation. I'm a bit reluctant to be too broad in my statements about enjoying the. . . . If you mean that too broadly, you could probably always find someone who disagrees. There were consultations with the two principal associations representing the mining industry.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to section 1, section 11.1 pass? Carried and so ordered.

Shall the amendment to section 17.1 pass?

D. Jarvis: I didn't think we were going to jump down to section 17.1 yet.

The Chair: We've just passed the amendment to the first part of the section.

D. Jarvis: To 11.1.

The Chair: Yes, and I was dealing with the next amendment.

D. Jarvis: Did I not interpret you as just saying something about the amendment to section 17.1?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps it would help, Mr. Chairman. . . . I'm certainly not stuck on sections. . . . The member, I believe, wants to discuss section 11.1, and there are two amendments to that. I would be happy to respond.

D. Jarvis: The proper thing to do is proceed through the bill according to the order of the way it's laid out, and we'll deal with amendments as we come to them. It seems to me that at this point we're down into subsection. . . . We've jumped all the way down to the compensation end of it. It only seems proper that we deal with the amendments as they come up, in the order that they come up. Am I not correct?

The Chair: Yes. We've just passed the amendment. My next question would be if section 11.1 as amended should pass.

On section 1, section 11.1 as amended.

D. Jarvis: In 11.1(2) on the aspect of the issuing authority, I was wondering -- and I think it was addressed somewhat by the member for Richmond-Steveston just before me -- whether this would be the existing Minister of Mines. That was somewhat of a question, because the Minister of Mines is not always what you'd call a. . . . Different aspects of the mining industry have changed in the last little while. The Minister of Environment seems to have been the primary individual running the Ministry of Mines. Now we seem to have somewhat more of an advocate of mining in the Ministry of Mines, yet the Minister of Mines prior to that was an individual who said that she was not an advocate of mining. One always questions when we come down to that point in the bill regarding issuing authority. I wonder if the minister

[ Page 7618 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's confidence in myself as the Minister of Energy and Mines.

The section is intended to confirm right of access -- obviously with the kind of provisos that would normally be there. In other words, access approvals are not given without examination. What we've been attempting to do, in arriving at both this bill and the mineral exploration code, is deal with the regulatory issues that sometimes ensue. If we can develop a different construct -- and we have -- and if my staff in the field, who are very conversant with the industry, have the authority to grant access approval which they have under the mineral exploration code, then we think it will simplify life for people in the mining industry seeking that access approval.

[3:45]

We've also looked at and put some language in the amendment so that the ministry considers alternatives where they are practicable. All of this is aimed at trying to simplify things, to make it easier for people in the mining sector to do their business -- but not in any way to denigrate our natural environment.

J. Wilson: I'd like the minister to explain that last statement he made with regard to access. What I understood him to say was that access would have to follow the standards set out under the FPC; however, there could be allowances made by the ministry in extenuating circumstances. Can he give me an example of what he means by allowances and whether or not all access will be what he considers to be appropriate access -- access that measures up to the roadbuilding standards in the Forest Practices Code?

Hon. D. Miller: No, In fact, that's the very point with respect to the difference. I did attempt to explain to the House the difference between exploration access, which is often minimum with respect to its requirements, and forestry road construction, which is clearly governed under the Forest Practices Code for very good reasons. Forestry roads are used to haul major equipment in addition to significant, huge logging trucks when harvesting commences. Those roads have to be built to a standard that can accommodate that equipment. They have to be built in such a way that the proper culverts are put in and those kinds of things, so there is no degrading of the environment, particularly watercourses.

In terms of mining exploration, it's quite a different matter. You may need a single track to haul a drilling rig in. You don't need to construct to the same standards. That's why we've determined that it's more appropriate for the Ministry of Energy and Mines to deal with clients in the energy and mines fields, as opposed to putting them under the Forest Practices Code.

I want to be clear: this isn't a licence. We want to make it easier, in a bureaucratic sense, for the mining industry. We think there's value in that. But I can tell you that my staff in the field know what their responsibilities are with respect to these applications, and there's no way they're going to permit access that ought not to be permitted. We'll try to work with the industry and try to make sure that there's less bureaucracy and fewer hurdles with respect to getting these kinds of approvals.

J. Wilson: I take it, then, that the minister has already established the standards that his ministry is going to impose on access to a mining claim for exploration. If these standards have not been developed yet, when can we expect them to be developed and put in place so that an exploration company or a tenure holder can get on with the job of getting into the site and doing their exploration work? Are we looking at a year or two years or three years down the road before they can access their claim?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd be happy to convey to the member, through my staff, all of the material we have relative to the codes and standards and the like, if that is acceptable.

R. Neufeld: Just a brief question on this section. I understand that the minister is talking about appropriate access and those kinds of things. I just wonder about the special use permit under the Forest Practices Code. Will we see an amendment now to the Forest Practices Code? Maybe the minister could explain to me what the special use permit will be. Does it have any relevance to this bill, or is that going to come a little bit later?

Hon. D. Miller: Really, the legislation simply talks about what already exists. The thrust of the section is dealing with certainty of access. So the special use permits under the Forest Practices Code are already a fact; they are already in existence. This text simply means, if you read the first three sentences literally, that a recorded holder "must be issued a special use permit under the Forest Practices Code," subject to the conditions that we have been talking about.

R. Neufeld: I wasn't aware and didn't remember that there is a special use permit available under the Forest Practices Code. Obviously, then, if that's there and the minister is aware of it, there must be some regulations that go along with that special use permit, which would describe what appropriate access would be. I know that the minister. . . . I'm not trying to be difficult here; I'm just trying to get a little more clarification on what the appropriate access would be. Would that be determined on a project-by-project basis depending on where it happens to be -- the terrain and those kinds of things? Or are there regulations in place that say this is how it must be done?

That's kind of what I'm familiar with in the Forest Practices Code. It describes almost to the nth degree what you can do and what you can't do. That's maybe where I'm trying to get to. I understand and appreciate. . . . I think we want to make access easier; I'm not trying to dispute that fact. I just

[ Page 7619 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member actually got close to the answer in his point. There are perhaps not an infinite variety of types of access, but there certainly is a wide variety. For example, it's clear that on some claims, given their distance from existing road networks and those kinds of things, the preferable access is helicopters. That's quite common, particularly in the mountainous terrain up in the northern part of my constituency. In other cases, depending on the kind of work that the applicant intends to carry out, there may be a requirement for a road of a fairly high standard. Alternatively, if it's a minimal amount of work -- if it's getting a drilling rig in -- there may be an application for a lower standard. So those standards are all currently outlined in the forest road regulation under the code. Really, what this does is allow my ministry to be the issuing authority, bearing in mind that we do have regulation covering these kinds of circumstances -- that's all.

D. Jarvis: I thought of a couple more things -- sorry about that.

I just want to sum up. When you say construction of appropriate access, we're talking about roads. And if you need to have a helicopter to lift a drill in somewhere else, you'll give them access to that. So it's full and complete access. Does that mean construction of roads if necessary -- like into a park? If we want to get through to an area and it is surrounded by a park, do we have access to go through a park on that premise?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm bold, but I'm not foolish.

No, definitely not. Industrial activity is not permitted within parks. If there are issues with respect to access through parks, then those issues must be dealt with by the minister responsible for parks.

On the access issue, I should add that obviously individuals applying for access permits have to also present a plan at the same time to my ministry in terms of the kind of exploration activity they want to carry out on the land, and that has to be approved as well. So the purpose is really to have the ministry as the issuing authority to try to simplify life and maybe to cut down on a bit of paperwork and on the number of offices you have to visit in order to get approvals, but by no means diminishing the standards that British Columbians expect ought to apply on the land.

D. Jarvis: Does that pertain to off and on the tenure -- the claim? As you say, you want to cut down the paperwork. Would they have to consult with you or with the other ministries pertaining to roads leading onto the tenure?

Hon. D. Miller: For off tenure. Forestry would set the conditions, but they must issue the permit.

D. Jarvis: I'm wondering if the minister could answer this: how about the access to placer mining? As you are aware, the placer miners are having great difficulty with regard to riparian zones; they can't go within ten metres. How is a placer miner going to gain access to his claim?

Hon. D. Miller: They are not treated any differently than any other application by a claim holder for access.

D. Jarvis: They are more or less denied access to the majority of the deposits at this present time in view of the attitude of the Ministry of Environment. They can't get into the middle stream beds because of riparian zones and all the rest of it. On that premise then, would we be talking about compensation for the existing claims that are out there now, which they can't get access to?

[4:00]

The government routinely and historically has taken land for a variety of purposes. We take land for highway purposes. Under statute, we have the right to expropriate private property for purposes that are considered for the greater good. By the way, that's not an ideological issue that the member should be tempted to debate. It's done by every government of every political stripe. The theory there is that if it's considered to be in the public interest -- for example, to build a road -- then that public interest occasionally becomes paramount over the private interests of a property holder. In those cases, there is an act -- the Arbitration Act -- and there are well-defined processes to protect individual rights under those circumstances.

Really, what we're advancing in the bill is a similar principle: where you have a legitimate claim or tenure, and it is taken for reasons of a higher purpose -- let's assume a park -- then under the authority of the act, you have a legitimate claim for compensation. Then there are processes to deal with how that number is arrived at.

On the other hand, the situation the member talks about is perhaps more akin to. . . . Well, I own a piece of property and I'd like to build something on it. But when you go to the authority, whether it's a municipality or a regional district, you'll find that there are a variety of rules that exist that limit your ability to do what you perhaps might want to do. That's generally what we call zoning. You can't go, for example -- is your home community North Vancouver? -- and build anything you want, even though you own the private property. You have to conform to the bylaws, the rules that were set out. You may desire to build a four-storey hotel in a residential neighbourhood, but the municipality says: "I'm sorry. You can't do that." So there are these inhibitors with respect to what any individual can do with their private property, but the rules are generally made in the broad public interest. Again, that's historically been the case for lo these many years.

R. Neufeld: Just a further question to my questions earlier. I'm not trying to beat it to death. The special use permit under the Forest Practices Code. . . . And there are a set of regulations that go with that special use permit already in place. What the minister tells me is that in the interest of expediency or being able to deal quicker with the mining industry or people that want to explore, his ministry will now be able to actually turn those permits out. Is the minister saying that previous to. . . ? Obviously, all this was in place already, so we're just putting it in another act under your jurisdiction as minister. Are you saying that earlier it was the Ministry of Forests that wouldn't. . . ? They already had the special use permit in place, and they already had a set of regulations in place. So are we saying they just didn't under-

[ Page 7620 ]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I wouldn't be condemning of people in any ministry with respect to the mandate they have, and the way they carry it out. I do believe, however, that there's more and more evidence to suggest that in this more complicated world we live in, we ought to be looking for ways in which we can conduct business in a more streamlined manner. Generally, one of the ways in which you can do that is to vest authority in a single agency for areas that sometimes rest with another agency. One assumes that it's possible to have individuals in my ministry, for example, that are fully conversant with all of the rules and regulations -- what you can do and what you can't do -- and will assess those things in an appropriate way and issue or deny applications for access.

It's not to denigrate, but I think governments, generally -- and again, I say that in a non-ideological sense -- have not paid enough attention. There has been a lot of lip service, and I hear it a lot: cut red tape and all the rest. I strongly believe in that, but I don't know that we've done a lot in terms of the construct, if you like. How can we maintain standards, which are very important, but still have a more streamlined process -- quicker, better time line, those kinds of things? This is really an attempt, in some ways. . . . In my view, we're kind of intermingling this broad topic under this section. But this is one of the ways that we think that can be accommodated. The Ministry of Forests will still issue the special use permit -- and whether to is a decision for them.

What we're saying in the bill, and what the mining industry -- I've got some letters here -- has taken some great comfort from, is that we are essentially saying that you can't be denied access. If you put in a plan and say, "I want to build a four-lane highway" into an area that has some sensitivity, you probably won't get your permit. In other words, you have to comply with the rules. But we're not going to turn you down; you have to do it right, that's all. So it's trying to simplify things, certainly to the extent that people can now go to one agency. I think that's a great improvement.

I bumped into a civil servant not long ago -- in fact, a fellow up in your constituency. He's a person I've known for a dozen years. He's a competent, qualified individual who has worked for the government service for many, many years. He cares about his job; he cares about the field that he works in. His comment to me was: "We're tripping over each other." I think he was trying to illustrate the fact that sometimes if you have a number of agencies involved in doing the same thing, all you're doing is adding to the paper burden and those kinds of questions. So it's really trying to make things more streamlined, but at the same time, protect the integrity of the processes that we've put in place.

R. Neufeld: I fully understand what you're talking about, although it's not dealt with in this bill. When you go to the oil and gas industry and have to deal with six or eight different ministries and try and get through the processes. . . . So actually, the Ministry of Forests will still issue the permit, but they will just rubber-stamp the one-window approach to the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. A proponent will come to your ministry and will say: "This is the plan. I have to go to that area to do some exploration." Your ministry will look at it. They'll say what can be done and what shouldn't be done. Someone from your ministry, as I understand it, will call the Ministry of Forests and say: "This is how we're going to do it -- A, B, C, D." Someone over there is just going to rubber-stamp it and put it through. Is that what is going to happen?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Again, the language is fairly clear, just to read it into the record:

"A recorded holder of a mineral title or an owner of a Crown granted 2 post claim must be issued a special use permit under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, subject to. . . ."

". . .any applicable higher level plan under that Act and to any terms and conditions set by the issuing authority, for the construction of appropriate access to the area of that mineral title or Crown granted 2 post claim for mining exploration, if the recorded holder or owner

(a) is the holder of a permit under the Mines Act for. . .exploration,

(b) applies for and receives the written approval of the Chief Inspector of Mines to the issuance under the Forest Practices Code. . .of the special use permit, and

(c) applies under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act for the special use permit."

D. Jarvis: To follow up, if proper consultation has occurred, Forests is going to approve that. As far as you're concerned, if proper consultation has occurred, they can't hold it up. Someone else can't come in and say: "Well, there hasn't been proper consultation with Environment and Highways and all the rest of it." So long as they have done the basis of what you say here in this bill, proper consultation has occurred -- forests will approve that plan.

Hon. D. Miller: If we keep going, I'm going to confuse myself here. I've tried to be pretty straightforward here. If I haven't been clear, I apologize. Actually, an answer I gave, either the last one or the one before that, might not have been as clear as it should have been. The issuing authority, in the case here, would be Forests. According to the three qualifications under section 11.1, they must be. . . . The question is, then, how? They must satisfy the kinds of conditions that we demand of anybody with respect to access. It gives and has given -- at least with respect to the discussions we've held with the mining sector -- some comfort. It ought to result in a little more streamlined operation in the field.

D. Jarvis: Conversely, we see. . . . I shouldn't say "we"; what I mean is the community, because I get a lot of telephone calls from different claim holders throughout the province. We see this aspect of deactivation of roads through the Forest Practices Code. That's why we're a little bit quizzical on this situation now as to who has the authority, because under the deactivation. . . .

I phoned the mining department on several occasions. They just threw up their hands and said: "Well, join the crowd." Forests and Environment do what they want; they go in. . . . We've seen it up at Kennedy Lake and different places like that. I've got files in the office. I've phoned your department in the last couple of years. Forests goes in; they give out a contract. And they deactivate a road, dig up all the trenching of the mines, costing thousands of dollars -- no cover over drill holes, and all the rest of it.

As I say, you get the permit to go in, but are you still going to be able to have the strength as a ministry to stop

[ Page 7621 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I'm prepared to provide a great deal of latitude, and I think I've actually reached the point where we ought to move on, because we've certainly gone around this section fairly thoroughly.

The situation the member talks about is not one that is really dealt with in this bill, and it's one that occurs not just with respect to mining. For example, I've had similar experiences when I was Minister of Forests, where shake cutters want to get access to a cutblock that may be on a TFL or a tenure. The tenure holder might be in a position to make some decisions about road deactivation, which would have an impact on someone else that wants to use the same road. Those are interjurisdictional issues. They're not always that simple, quite frankly.

While the member may indeed have a file and while there may be some areas where there are legitimate issues raised by people who want access, whether it be for mining or for other things, it really has nothing to do with this bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I humbly suggest that we -- I think we canvassed it; there's general agreement with respect to the section -- can perhaps move on.

Section 1, section 11.1 as amended approved.

On section 1, section 17.1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment submitted to the Clerks.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed section 17.1, by adding the following subsection:

(4) Despite subsection (1), no compensation is payable under this section to the recorded holder of a claim if the minister believes on reasonable grounds that the claim was acquired or is being held

(a) for other than a mining activity, or

(b) mainly in the expectation of receiving compensation or other consideration if the area, under the Park Act, is acquired or expropriated.]

[4:15]

I want to ask quite a few questions. When you come into this part, it ends up with: where are we with the parks? And why is it just for parks? The compensation rule doesn't apply to any other situation. What if I have a claim and the Ministry of Parks or the Ministry of Forests, or whatever it may be, comes in and puts a claim all around except this area where the claim is, and there's no possible way that I can get access to it? Therefore you would be unable to raise any money for that claim, and no investor would be prepared to put money into it to develop it further. What would occur in a situation like that? What do you interpret that to be?

Hon. D. Miller: Very interesting. I hate to put words in the member's mouth, but it seems by inference that what he's suggesting is that once this government completes its mandate, which we certainly were elected on and which has been a position of this party for a number of years. . . . In other words, we want to put into parks 12 percent of the very best that British Columbia has to offer. It has certainly been a difficult and exhaustive process, and there has been a lot of conflict along the way. I'm very pleased that we're heading toward that end goal.

The member seems to suggest that once we do that, no future government -- and certainly, by inference, no future Liberal administration -- would ever create a single new park in British Columbia. That is a bit puzzling. That's hardly a mandate to run on. It's one that you may want to, but I would suggest that in British Columbia, it might not get you too far. We can't predict what might happen a decade from now or two decades from now, nor should we. What we ought to try to do is lay down some principles in legislation that will stand the test of time.

But right now, in the here and now, there are two issues that I think are important. One is that there have been claims that have been taken in the past number of years as a result of land use decisions. We have made a commitment to deal with those outstanding claims in the same manner as prescribed under the act. That's been accepted by the industry, and we will proceed to deal with those questions. Secondly, we have very simply outlined for the first time in legislation that claims are compensable and are, to some degree. . .a process that will be used. It's not fully fleshed out, because, quite frankly, the regulatory side is going to be very critical with respect to this. We will compensate when those claims are taken.

Again, it's something that was welcome. I do have several letters from people who have been in the mining industry for a good number of years, and they're telling me that as a result of this bill and this kind of attitude, they think there's a great future for mining in B.C.

D. Jarvis: I would say to the minister that there probably is a great future for mining in this province because this government won't be running this province forever. Nevertheless, it goes back to my original comments when the bill was first presented: this is a good start. It's the dawn of a new venture, where we're going to get back into a business way of doing things in this province. We can put roads where they should be to create tourism and to create more types of parks. We can create more places where we can expand and go out and explore -- you know, roads up the Stikine or up the Taku and places like that. I know that the member from Burnaby, the one who's here, would love to see that happening more and more.

My question wasn't fully answered. I just wanted to know if I could. . . . I'm worried that they could create a park and cut off access to a claim. Would they be prepared to consummate that? That's sort of a new problem. I'm not sure how it's going to be solved. I'm not necessarily saying that there's great value down there in that claim. Do you really want the economic value out of it, or do you want it to be consummated as a park?

[ Page 7622 ]

D. Jarvis: Another aspect that I'd like the minister to clarify or perhaps change a bit is where it says in the bill "expropriates" following "the Park Act." It gives consternation. That would have to come back to the point of the retroactivity of claims. What would the minister's position be on possibly inserting something like "or has expropriated" in that section? He's probably going to say that there's a class action out there, and I know the Premier is aware of that class action suit. I think he said in a press conference -- which I wasn't aware he was having, so I can't quote verbatim. . . . But he did say on some aspect of it that all those claims that will be coming up on past situations of expropriation in this province. . . . This is going to open up a big debate. We're talking about going all the way back to Schwindt, I guess. The Premier said that those past claims in the class action suit and other claims will be treated in the same vein as what is happening today with this bill. If it's passed, for claims that are expropriated in parks, there will be compensation.

I just want to ask the minister. . . . The history of this government has been such that we've had a few problems: Cream Silver, Casamiro -- we can sit and talk about that for a long time -- and Tatshenshini. These were significant claims that have been expropriated by this government. Some had, when it was high-profile. . . . You know what happened with Cream Silver. I believe the courts in British Columbia said that you had to pay compensation. Later on they went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that they didn't have to pay compensation to Cream Silver and Casamiro.

Public opinion was such that the previous Premier was required to make some compensation on the Tatshenshini. Of course, I've always said that as long as you mine responsibly, you should be able to mine in the parks -- like they're doing in Strathcona Park today. That's brought great economic value to Vancouver Island and to the members from Vancouver Island. I can't see that they would be prepared to stand up and say they don't want the Westmin mine, especially the members from Campbell River, Comox and those areas. But that's in a park, and it's an economic advantage to this province.

We have a slight question here, and that is: are you considering putting a retroactive clause in this thing by saying "has been expropriated," or can we get a solemn promise from the minister and the Premier that in the future this government is prepared to treat claims that have been expropriated by this government prior to this date and the enactment of this bill on the same premise as the claims that are expropriated in the future will be treated?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I made that statement only moments ago; it is recorded in Hansard. We made it outside this chamber, both the Premier and myself. So we've answered that question. We couldn't possibly make the bill retroactive; it's prospective. We'll deal with the future, and we've made a commitment to deal with the past.

I'm a bit surprised, actually, that the policy -- as I interpret the member's statements -- of the Liberal Party is to have mining in parks. If you wanted to test that issue in the court of public opinion, you might get some immediate response. I suggest that it's not the kind of statement that would be met with much favour even within your own caucus. The member may want to think about that, but at this stage the conclusion that the House has drawn -- or at least I've drawn -- is that the member is advocating mining in parks. I think it's important that political parties do state their policies with respect to these very important questions. It's certainly not our policy. And if that's the case, I think the public would appreciate knowing. We are not entertaining the prospect of mining in parks.

I am aware of the Myra Falls mine. It's been in place for some time; it is producing revenues for its owner; it's producing jobs for its employees. In fact, I was advised by the company that they are spending further money with respect to exploration, and that's fine. I don't think anybody has a particular quarrel with what has historically developed in that location.

To set the record straight, it was not this administration that had some difficulty with the Cream Silver issue. In fact, if you go back, you will find that it was the previous Social Credit administration. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry Huberts, who was a very reasonable member of the Social Credit administration of the time and became the minister responsible for parks, got himself into a bit of a jam. Within the space of about a week and a half or two weeks, the government at that time did two reversals of policy with respect to the question of mining in parks and ended up saying: "No, we couldn't allow any more." It was a Social Credit administration, which the member for Peace River North was a member of at that time.

D. Jarvis: Well, I don't think it's the policy of our party to specifically say: go out and mine every park in this country just for the sake of mining. My own personal opinion -- and I have said this before in the House -- is that as long as it is done responsibly, there should be nothing wrong with it. We have proof that if it's done responsibly, like in the Westmin mine, there's really nothing wrong with it.

[4:30]

I want to go on to another aspect of section 17.1 on compensation, dealing with the part in regard to the settlement of a claim. At this point I would like to put forward an amendment. I'll read it, if that's all right. It's to do with section 17.1(1) and replacing it with:

[ Page 7623 ]

[If, after the coming into force of this section, the minister responsible for the administration of the Park Act expropriates under section 11 of the Park Act the rights of a recorded holder of a lease or claim or of an owner of a Crown granted 2 post claim, compensation is payable to the recorded holder or owner, as the case may be, in an amount equal to the fair market value of the rights expropriated, to be determined under the regulations.]

Another analogy would be if you had a situation evolving around a mine where you have a claim, and you paid $50,000 for this claim or do $50,000 worth of work, and you find no value to it -- there's no mineral down there. Are you entitled to that $50,000? If you pay $1 million for a claim and then you find out that the claim has $100 million worth of ore in it, are you going to be paid out for the $100 million or for just the $1 million in expenses that you put forward on it? Are we going to go back to Schwindt -- was that Bill 31 or 32, back in 1992? -- where you pay only for the amount expended? I think that at this point we should start on a few interpretations as to what you mean by value.

The Chair: The amendment is in order, so if we could deal with the member's amendment first. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly, I would reject the amendment, and let me speak to that question. But first, very briefly, the member did refer to old mines that have ceased operation but are contributing to degradation of the environment. I think that's a very important question. Two were identified in some correspondence I saw earlier this week. One is the Britannia mine, which started operation in 1905, and the other is on the Tsolum River. I'm not as familiar with Britannia, having read just the briefing notes on the topic; but with respect to the Tsolum one, there is a problem.

It's a problem we are trying to address, although we are clearly not in a position to put the kind of significant dollars into the problem that I think it's ultimately going to take. But there is absolutely no question that as a result of an abandoned mine, acid mine drainage from that source and, as I understand it, from other more natural sources along the river have resulted in -- and I can't recall which species of salmon is impacted -- the cessation of those runs of salmon. That is not something that would be acceptable today. It simply would not be acceptable.

I sat down with an outstanding committee. The MLA in the Comox area brought those people together. I met with them, and we talked about the problem. I want to say that people in my own ministry have volunteered their own personal time to work on this problem, and there's a dedicated group of people in the Comox Valley who are working very, very hard to see if they can, over time, mitigate with respect to that mine.

It's a very difficult problem, quite frankly, because when you look at the sources and look at how you might build in some containment, it's by no means a simple matter. I've also written to the Mining Association of B.C., asking that they take that up as a cause or a project of their association to demonstrate their concern, as well. We've donated a modest amount of money, only $5,000 -- this fiscal year or perhaps last year; I'm not quite sure -- to assist the volunteer committee to formulate plans.

So mistakes were made in the past, and we're working. . . . Perhaps if the coffers of government were endless and money wasn't a question, we could perhaps put in the kinds of resources to fix those problems and do it a heck of a lot quicker. I'd like to do that, quite frankly, because I certainly think that everybody has a high regard for and understanding of the need to maintain fisheries habitat, to maintain those wild stocks important to our future.

On the other hand, under modern mining legislation and regulations, we require bonds to be posted. We currently hold $167 million in reclamation bonds that industry has posted. The way we do business now is to say -- because we all understand that minerals are non-renewable -- that every mine has a life based on the extent of the mineralization, and that when those mines close at the end of that economic life, there has to be mediation. There has to be. They have to file that plan at the front end and post those bonds.

Let's hope that we're vigilant, that we get it right. I think we have. If you look at some of the new projects that came on stream last year out in the Cariboo and on Mount Polley and up in north-central B.C. -- the Huckleberry project -- they're good projects, they're built to world-class standards. And we've got the system in place that ensures that at the end of those mines' life, the necessary reclamation work will be done.

I think the mining industry in modern times. . . . Although there has been this horrible incident in Spain, Boliden, in my view, has inherited the problem. They bought an operating mine; they didn't develop that mine. These are tragedies of the worst order. So it's very important that when we develop mining projects in this province, they meet the highest standards, the best standards. We've got the means, through reclamation bonds and the like, to deal with what happens when those mines close.

Tulsequah is an interesting project, because what it will do, among other things, is solve an acid mine drainage problem that exists as a result of the old Cominco mine that was closed in the fifties. One of the benefits of that new project is that they'll actually deal every day with a problem that's occurring right now. It's uppermost in our minds that we have to be vigilant with respect to our natural environment.

I would try to assure the member that the wording in the bill really talks about value, and there's nothing to be gained by an amendment that amplifies on that with respect to fair market value. Value is the amount that would be paid -- in one way of determination -- for a title, had it been sold at the date of exploration in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. The actual process of valuation is much more complex and comprehensive than that simple test. After all, there has to be a buyer.

One of the unintended consequences of the member's amendment might be to deprive an owner. . . . If there were no buyer to test the market, then there could be no value established. I think our language actually works better for the holders of these claims. The actual process of valuation will be done and prescribed by regulation, as the text says. Again, I don't purport to be an expert, but there are. . . . In discussions

[ Page 7624 ]

But I think we've got it right. I think there may be an unintended consequence of the member's amendment. I think I understand why he submitted it. But perhaps on reflection, given my explanation, he may want to reconsider, or we could simply vote and defeat the amendment.

D. Jarvis: We started off trying to get some clarity as to what value is, but the minister went off on a tangent on acid drainage that really isn't part of this bill. But we will bring it up again in estimates.

Nevertheless, I just want to make a couple of little comments. The minister was talking in regards to what they're doing with reclamation and all the rest, almost trying to assume that the opposition party doesn't care. I'll have him know that as I said earlier, back in '92, '93 and '95, I brought up Mount Washington. I brought up that Tsolum River problem and all the rest of it. I did bring it up to the House. If you go back to Hansard, you'll find that I brought it up to the minister, and the minister adamantly said: "That is not our responsibility." So whose responsibility is it? The mine's owners have technically gone. You can't even reach them. No one knows who they are.

[4:45]

But I really do feel that clarity is needed in establishing value. We've got to get it in these rules and regulations. I guess that's where you're looking for the clarity; the clarity will be listed in there. On that point -- I know we're sort of going off on a tangent somewhat -- who do you intend to make up these rules and regulations? Are you going to have people that are in the business doing it? I'm not talking about the bureaucrats in the mining department. Are you taking people out of the mining industry -- and, perhaps, various firms, rather than just the majors? Some of the juniors and some of the younger, smaller exploration people out there really do feel that they are being twisted in this bill.

This bill does provide compensation and everything for the majors and those that are coming up the stream, but the small explorers out there really feel that they're getting shafted completely by this bill. The more we talk about this bill, as the member for Peace River South said -- oops, he's gone; or he never was here -- it's harder to take, because there are a lot of holes in this bill. But it's a start, and that's what we work on.

But I want to get some specific idea from you as to how you're going to interpret clarity of value in the regulations.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess I've been fairly lax, and the member and I share the blame for that. We've wandered all over the map with respect to debate on the bill. Perhaps in the interests of time and orderly process, we ought to be more focused in our comments. I will certainly try. I repeat: the process of valuation is very, very complex. We do have, I think, some of the best people in Canada engaged. We intend to consult not only with the industry itself. . . . I would say, in opposition to what the member has said, that Mr. McKnight of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines has been very, very supportive of this bill. I have spoken to him personally, and others have. He was at our press conference. He represents those people you talked about.

I do say that I would seriously ask the member to consider withdrawing, in that the wording that you have submitted in this amendment may have an unintended consequence of limiting the way in which valuation could be obtained. To suggest that it's as simple as fair market value is, I'm afraid. . . . With all due respect, the claim-holders are better off with our language than yours. Perhaps I can't convince you of that. If that is the case, I suggest that we vote on the amendment, and let's try to move on with respect to the other sections of the bill.

D. Jarvis: I'm always willing to do something that's for the better value of the industry and the people of British Columbia, the voters. What's best for them and the industry and for us as politicians inside that are making up these bills. . . . The minister has not given me any sort of warm fuzzy feeling that what they intend to do. . .that the verbiage in here is going to be a betterment to someone's claim that has been expropriated. Does he not have any sort of indication that he can give me -- other than saying trust me? Those are only words, and words can be. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, we won't go into that subject with the member for Nanaimo. That would go right off on a tangent.

I'm prepared to withdraw our amendment. I'm not saying I am. . . . As it is, the minister cannot, it seems, give me some kind of solace that the trust that he says to "trust us" with is going to be satisfactory to those people who have their claims expropriated by this government in the future. This government has said that the court cases in regard to Cream Silver and the like weren't worth doing; they're of the Socreds'. . . . Well, that may be so. But I can remember when the Schwindt bill came in, as I mentioned earlier. I've got it around here somewhere, and I've got all the papers on it. Your government did that, not someone else's government. What happens to the individual that has put a little bit or quite a bit of money into a property and finds it has no mineral value and walks away? Does he get what he's expended? What about the guy that's put in very little money and finds that he's got $100 million down there? What does he get -- the $5,000 that he's expended? Or is he entitled to what the fair market value of his claim would have been?

So could the minister perhaps, before we get down to calling a vote on this amendment, try to explain that to me a little further?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not certain that the failure to induce a warm and fuzzy feeling in the member is mine. I attempted, first of all, to outline that the bill is a result of very focused negotiations with the Mining Association and others in the mining field. As a result, that's why people in the mining sector attended our conference. I was delighted to receive a copy of a letter, for example, from Walter Selmer,

[ Page 7625 ]

Perhaps no amount of speaking on my behalf can give the member the kind of warm and fuzzy feeling he's looking for, but we've made very clear, emphatic statements about what our intentions are. I've said repeatedly that the process of valuation is not something that I'm an expert in. It is a very complex issue. It looks at a whole range of factors to determine value. I don't know that that subject -- which is very extensive -- can undergo the kind of discussion here that perhaps members would like to have.

It is a very important topic. I'd be happy to have my staff hold briefing sessions on the question. I'd be happy to disseminate literature that we have on the question, which would certainly reinforce the view I'm expressing here, as the minister. We sincerely want to get it right, and we think the language that we have in this section. . . . The simple word "value" is the appropriate language to allow us to proceed. There will be the development of regulations. We will consult with industry, and we will also, by the way, consult with others outside of industry. I've made a commitment to consult with some people from the environmental community on this question, because they've expressed some concern. I'd be happy to have the members opposite be as fully informed as they possibly can be on what our intentions are here, and how we intend to develop those regulations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could move on with the other sections.

Amendment negatived on division.

On the previous amendment.

R. Neufeld: I noted with interest, in the comments from the minister, that there was a focused and great meeting with the mining industry, and that they're in great support. I read the newspaper columns that also said that. I think we're all aware that on April 21 the minister tabled this bill in the House, and today he tabled amendments to that bill that are actually larger than the bill itself. It would tend to lead one to believe. . . . I'm not sure what happened from April 21 until today. Obviously, again, the government is jumping ahead of itself. Maybe it was to capture the newspaper headline of the day, because it was Mining Day in British Columbia and here at the Legislature, and the minister wanted to present a bill, but it was poorly drafted. I'm not trying to say anything negative about anybody, but obviously it was. If there was so much consultation, it absolutely amazes me that the minister. . . . Well, he tabled one amendment prior to this; it's in Orders of the Day. Here we have amendments that are bigger than the bill. That leads me to believe two things, I guess. Maybe there wasn't as much consultation as the minister says, or it was just to get a little bit of TV that day -- to try to react and show the people of the province that you are concerned.

I'm really not sure, but that would lead me to ask and to be a little bit hesitant about taking the minister's word as he stands up and talks about how everyone is so supportive of it. I've had smaller placer miners tell me that they're not really all that supportive of this bill. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour brought that forward. There are some people out there who don't think this is the best thing since sliced bread, and probably for some very obvious reasons.

I want to ask a couple of things about your amendment and deal with it a little hypothetically. It's a little difficult to do that when we're talking section by section, but the minister is known for wanting to be hypothetical in talking about some of these issues. In the section 1 amendment, section 17.1(4)(a) says: ". . . for other than a mining activity. . . ." I'm wondering if someone who lives in my constituency, close to the mountains. . . . There are lots of them that have had land that they leased from government for other purposes over a number of years. Then, for whatever reason, they decided to go turn a few rocks over and found mineral activity there. Then it was taken in for a park. How would you deal with that? Would you deal with it on the basis of why the person first had the land, or would you deal with it for that reason and also because they had actually found some minerals, of whatever kind, and were starting to mine it? How would you do that? I think maybe there has to be a further explanation of that one line for me.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to reassure the member. He's not a nineties guy, obviously. The question is not how big the amendment is; size doesn't really matter. In fact, all of that language is really there. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I see I've raised a few chuckles from some of my colleagues.

The bulk of the amendment is really the addition of coal. That was an oversight. It's really not the size of your amendment that counts.

[5:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I may be getting in trouble here, Mr. Chairman. Help me out.

Let me try to offer a very brief explanation for subsection (1). It seems patently clear that if you purchased a claim for some other reason, presumably you wouldn't have the opportunity to look for compensation because you were denied the opportunity to work your claim. Now, it may be stating the obvious, but sometimes there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes it gives a bit of definition so that people who are perhaps unfamiliar with the legalese might be more reassured. Really, that's all: those two qualifiers, which I did canvass earlier today with the member's colleague, a distinguished member of the bar. He seemed to be satisfied with the discussion we had and the explanation given, but now we're going over it again. I think it's pretty straightforward.

R. Neufeld: The minister talked earlier and said that claims prior to this bill coming into effect would be treated the same as this bill states now for claims in the future. I guess that makes me ask a number of questions. I'm certainly not a lawyer and don't have any legal training. But those individuals that are presently in court against the government -- for instance, the group of them that has a court challenge against the government, a class action. . . . I guess what would happen now is that. . . . Who determines that? Is that class action

[ Page 7626 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: The response from the industry with respect to those previous claims has been that they're desirous of seeking resolution. We've made a commitment to seek resolution of those claims under the structure that's outlined in the bill, although the bill is prospective, not retroactive. That has been accepted by the Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. Beyond that, I can't speak about individuals, nor can I speak about issues that may or may not be before the courts.

R. Neufeld: Obviously, then, the folks that have the class action right now can continue their class action against the government, even though this piece of legislation will be passed. Is that the way I understand it?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I didn't say that. I said that the information I have is that those people who have outstanding claims would like to resolve them. Further to that, we have given our commitment to apply the principles in this bill to previous claims -- a way in which they can be resolved. Beyond that, quite frankly, I really can't speak with respect to any legal issues or, indeed, the attitude that individuals may have.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to go to the Tatshenshini for a minute. In 1993, when your government claimed that as a park, there were a lot of placer miners in that park, along with Royal Oak Mines. Your government made the statement that you would put money into a fund to deal with the smaller miners. Your government, under the previous Premier, Mike Harcourt, put out a press release to that effect. It was a commitment that. . . . I think a lot of people thought you really meant that you were going to do it. But as we have become so used to, you didn't do it. Your government never did set up a fund. Your government never did intend, I guess, to deal with those small miners in the Tatshenshini. In fact, it only dealt with the one large operator, Royal Oak, and expended some $400 million on relocating Royal Oak.

But there are some miners that were left holding the bag. These are the small guys; these are the small miners that. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Well, the minister just. . . . Let me finish the statement before the question, and then you can give me the answer. And I'm sure that you will have a grand answer for me.

In this bill we also see the removal of the Expropriation Act as it applies to the Mining Act. Now, I know for a fact that one small mining firm in the Tatshenshini took the government to task because it broke its promise -- it didn't live up to it. In fact, you forced the small company to take the government of British Columbia to court, and the Expropriation Act applied. There was an arbitrator, a court case and a whole series of things that happened. Under the Arbitration Act, there are all kinds of things that say that the government has to make an offer within a certain time period. If they actually don't, the value and the interest doubles. It has gotten to the point where I think, as of a year ago, the bill to the people of the province of British Columbia is somewhere around $8 million for this one person.

So as I read this act and what it will do to the Expropriation Act and all those issues tied to it, what you're really saying to that person is that while they had the audacity to take this government to court to try and get some of their money back, you're not going to allow that to happen. You're going to bring this act into effect which is going to take away all those rights and everything they have won up until today -- all because of a broken promise by your government. It just absolutely amazes me how many times you folks break promises. It just never quits. It started under the other Premier, and it's with this Premier today. And then we bring in a bill that says that we're going to take away those rights from people. I find it absolutely amazing how you folks on that side of the House can continue to do this to individuals in the province of British Columbia, all in the name of I don't know what.

Maybe the minister can now, in his legal way, after listening to what I think will happen, get up and explain to me that this really isn't going to be the fact -- that they actually consulted with that firm, that they actually talked to that firm about this bill before they brought it into the House -- and guarantee me unequivocally that that company is in total favour of what's going to take place with them after this bill comes into effect.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't. I've never talked to the company. The issues are before the courts, and I will not comment upon them. The member is wrong. This bill, for the first time, entrenches the legal right to compensation for claims which has never been part of the law in British Columbia. Notwithstanding that, in the taking of the Tatshenshini, the government of the day did allocate money -- and I can't recall the exact amount of money -- to resolve those claims, even though there was not a legal obligation under law to do it.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: There was not. This is the first bill that puts claims as compensable -- the first one that recognizes, as other provincial jurisdictions. . . . There are claims and tenures; there's a difference. This is the first time it's been put into law. Look, we can go on, and we can refight old fights. The members have made their point. They have gotten up on a number of occasions and talked about their version of events with respect to this government's attitude towards mining. Fair enough; I don't quarrel with that.

I can argue. . . . Perhaps I'm as guilty as any member for talking a little bit too much sometimes when fewer words would do. I've never claimed that every single mining company, regardless of whether they are placer miners or whatever, is out in the streets celebrating the fact that we've got this bill. What I said is that we sat down with the Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and senior people in the mining industry in this province and we came to an agreement, and this bill is a result of it. The mineral exploration code is a result of it. It's generally been supported and applauded. I do have lots of letters from people -- people who have been in the mining industry for a long time in this province -- applauding this move.

[ Page 7627 ]

The Chair: Members, let's return to the amendment to section 17.1.

D. Jarvis: I walked in here with the feeling that we were going to walk through this bill very quickly, because we had some basic things in here. And now, as I just said a minute ago, when the member for Peace River North was talking, the more you get into this bill, the worse it seems to be appearing.

You've just finished saying, with regards to compensation for the previous claims that were in that class action and the other ones back there, that you and the Premier got up and gave the people out there confidence. I've talked to the people in the Mining Association of B.C., and they are thinking that this is a first step. But there are other people out there saying no, because you are. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Take your seat please. We're dealing with the amendment to section 1, section 17.1 of this bill. That's the debate we want to have right now, okay? After we pass this amendment, we can deal with the subject matter you're entering into.

D. Jarvis: All right, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with the amendment that he's put forward on section 1, section 17.1(4). Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes, member.

D. Jarvis: Okay. Therefore, on that premise, I would like the minister. . . . I'll come back to what I was trying to get around to, which I thought would have answered this question as well. But seeing that the Chair has intervened and said that I have to speak specifically to the amendment, let us do so.

With this amendment -- section 1, section 17.1(4) -- the minister is saying: "Despite subsection (1), no compensation is payable under this section to the recorded holder of a claim if the minister believes on reasonable grounds that the claim was acquired or is being held. . . ." Could he interpret what he means by "the minister believes"? That's a very, very open statement.

When we were previously talking about compensation, the minister stated that he and the Premier made a statement in public, at a press conference, that they would compensate the previous claim holders. Yet the minister gets up and says: "We have said to the Mining Association that this is a way we can settle. It's not that we will settle; it's a way we can settle." Beyond that, he can say no more. He has told the people in this province that it's a way we can settle, but there's no guarantee at all that we are going to do it. The minister and the Premier, I think, are snowballing the whole mining community and the people of this province that they are going to look after the people who have had their claims expropriated in the past. I'd like the minister to see if he can clarify a little more as to what he believes, because I don't believe him.

[5:15]

If you buy a claim for a purpose other than wanting to explore and potentially mine that claim, then that's not compensable. If you simply buy a claim on the anticipation that the area may be made into a park and you'll reap a windfall as a result of that, then you're out of luck there too. As fundamental, simple statements, why would anybody, even members opposite. . . ? It's not a question of ideology. Why would anybody quarrel with those statements? On the face of it, they are as simple as can be. There's no mysterious plot here to deny any legitimate claims. We're bringing a bill in that for the first time gives people the legal right to go after claims if the province takes them. That's the principle in this bill. That's why the Mining Association and others like it.

That is a very simple explanation. As I repeat for the third time, I went through this very section with another member of the Liberal caucus opposite, and no problems were identified.

D. Jarvis: The minister seems to be getting upset about trying to explain to us what he means by certain verbiage inside the bill, here, and he is referring to the member for Richmond-Steveston, to whom he thought he had explained it. Maybe he did think that he explained it perfectly, and maybe the member did understand it, but I don't understand what he's trying to get at, in the sense that. . . . Is he trying to insinuate that one mining company will go and buy another claim, just to hold onto it? That seems to be what it says. What other activity could he interpret or what proof does he have to determine that someone is buying a claim for other than the purpose of mining it, or "(b) mainly in the expectation of receiving compensation or other consideration. . . "? Have you got proof to show that this has happened in the past, where people have come in and bought a claim, spent hundreds of millions of dollars for a claim, for the purpose of trying to get some more money out of the government? Is that what he's insinuating with this? That's how it appears to me -- and to anyone else that I have talked to as well.

Hon. D. Miller: I think we really have canvassed that. I'm not making any insinuations. The language speaks for itself. It's very straightforward, very simple. I would think all members would agree. Why would anybody want to compensate if it were deemed that someone was trying to speculate on mining claims for the purpose of receiving compensation?

[ Page 7628 ]

D. Jarvis: The member doesn't agree with it, and what the minister is trying to say is that I do. He hasn't clarified it. On that basis, I'll sit down, and we'll call the vote on that.

Amendment to section 1, section 17.1, of Bill 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen

NAYS -- 22
C. Clark	de Jong	Plant
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Weisbeck	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Dalton	Masi
Krueger	McKinnon	J. Wilson
	Reitsma

On section 1, section 17.1 as amended.

D. Jarvis: I want to get into subsection 17.1(2) -- the question of an arbitrator. I have some questions with regard to the sole arbitrator. It's an issue that's out there. The other aspect is that "appointed" is also an issue. What does "prescribed qualifications" mean? Would the minister care to say who he considers to be qualified regarding that aspect of this section?

[5:30]

D. Jarvis: Again on that section of the bill, I do have concerns, and there are people in the mining industry that I've talked to who also have concerns about this section. We're looking at a one-man person, and I'm just wondering if, ideally, we should have a situation -- and has the minister considered it? -- where each side would appoint an arbitrator and then appoint a neutral one themselves. So there'd be a three-man arbitration board or something like that. If you are sitting there with the minister or whoever the minister thinks is qualified to do it. . . . We don't know who he is, and it could be anyone. As I said earlier, the minister says he's an advocate for mining, but we need someone that's going to be an arbitrator, not a person that is just. . . . It could be a raving environmentalist, for all we know. The minister raises his eyes, but let's face it, the previous Minister of Mines said she wasn't an advocate of mining. What she said, I think, was: "I am a regulator, not an advocate for mining." So those are the questions that are out there that really are of concern.

The minister may try to tell us that the mining industry has bought into this. The mining industry has bought into this for the purpose that it's a start, and they'll wait and hear what the minister has to say. The minister is not giving us any real, full consolation as to what he intends to do in the future in regard to arbitration and compensation. Is it going to be of benefit to the average miner out there? Could the minister comment further on that point?

Hon. D. Miller: The Commercial Arbitration Act was looked at but considered to be too expensive. The regulations, as I indicated, will specify the arbitrator's qualifications. There will be a list. The title holder -- in other words, the claim holder -- will select the arbitrator from the list, and the minister will appoint.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his answer.

I question section 17.1(3), the aspect of no right of appeal. That could be very perverse -- with no appeal. I'm wondering if the minister has considered any sort of binding arbitration. Just what does he intend to do under this section, if he wouldn't mind explaining?

Hon. D. Miller: We have defined a process that will lead to resolve. I suppose you could have endless appeals, but the question really is to get on with it. The process is fair: the title holder gets to select from a list, the minister will appoint that person, and they'll make the decision.

R. Neufeld: Just a few more questions. I want to go back -- and I'm not going to talk again about your broken promises about the Tat. I'm going to try to stay away from that political part of the discussion. What I want to find out is if the people in the class action suit right now, for instance -- that have a class action against the government of British Columbia for expropriation. . . . Will their rights be legislated away to go through the court if this bill comes into effect?

Hon. D. Miller: This bill is prospective; it does not deal with any rights that people currently have.

M. de Jong: I think my friend from Peace River North just wants assurance from the minister that the cause of action that might presently exist under the Expropriation Act doesn't disappear with the passage of this legislation, which, as I understand it, creates an alternate cause of action.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

Section 1, section 17.1 as amended approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

D. Jarvis: There are five points to section 2, section 65(2). There are a few sections in here that we want to have perhaps a little more clarification on. Pertaining to subsection

[ Page 7629 ]

It's location, location. There's a situation where we could see that values will differ from one place to the other -- what one ore value is versus another one. There are times of the season. . . . This is a very cyclical industry, and at the time they tend to do it, the values may be high. We just don't know where we're going on this, really, other than what the minister has promised to do. There's nothing definable, so we want to know what his methods of valuation refer to. He's promised us a briefing on this, so we'll take it on that basis; the briefing will be one that is acceptable and definable. We hope that our concerns are. . . . It's not what this government has done in the past but what they intend to do in the future. We hope that the forthcoming changes will be of benefit to the industry and not a detriment as they have been in the past. On that premise, I'll sit down on this section.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment that has been tabled with the Clerks.

[SECTION 3.1, by adding the following section:

3.1 The Coal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 51, is amended by adding the following sections:

Compensation

7.1 (1) If, after the coming into force of this section, the minister responsible for the administration of the Park Act expropriates under section 11 of the Park Act the rights of the licensee under a licence or of the lessee under a lease, compensation is payable to the licensee or lessee, as the case may be, in an amount equal to the value of the rights expropriated, to be determined under the regulations.

(2) If the minister responsible for the administration of this Act and the licensee or lessee, as the case may be, do not agree as to the amount of compensation that is payable under subsection (1), the minister or the licensee or lessee may require the dispute to be settled by a single arbitrator who has the prescribed qualifications and is to be appointed by the minister.

(3) The award of the single arbitrator appointed by the minister responsible for the administration of this Act is binding on the parties to the arbitration.

Certainty of access

12.1 (1) A licensee must be issued a special use permit under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, subject to any applicable higher level plan under that Act and to any terms and conditions set by the issuing authority, for the construction of appropriate access to the area of that licence for mining exploration, if the licensee

(a) is the holder of a permit under the Mines Act for the mining exploration,

(b) applies for and receives the written approval of the Chief Inspector of Mines to the issuance under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act of the special use permit, and

(c) applies under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act for the special use permit.

(2) For the purpose of this section the Chief Inspector of Mines, after considering practicable alternative means of access, may grant or refuse the written approval referred to in subsection (1).

2 Section 29(2) is amended by adding the following:

(e.1) for the purposes of section 7.1,

(i) determining the value and defining the components that comprise value,

(ii) methods of evaluation for use in determining value, that may differ according to different components of value.

(iii) factors to be taken into account in an evaluation,

(iv) defining the role of evaluators in a determination of value and prescribing qualifications for evaluators that are prerequisite to their participation in the determination of value, and

(v) prescribing the qualifications for a single arbitrator referred to in section 7.1;.]

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment that I have submitted to the Clerks.

[SECTION 4, by deleting the proposed section 4 and substituting the following:

4 Section 2 of the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125, is amended by adding the following:

(3.1) After the coming into force of this subsection, this Act does not apply to an expropriation under section 11(2) of the Park Act of an interest in land in the form of

(a) rights under a lease, as defined in the Mineral Tenure Act, of the recorded holder of the lease,

(b) rights under a lease, as defined in the Coal Act, of the lessee, or

(c) rights under a Crown granted 2 post claim of its owner.]

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 5 submitted to the Clerk.

[SECTION 5(a), by deleting the proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) and substituting the following:

(c) rights under a claim, as defined in the Mineral Tenure Act, of the recorded holder of the claim,

(d) rights under a Crown granted 2 post claim of its owner, as defined in the Mineral Tenure Act,

(e) rights under a lease, as defined in the Coal Act, of the lessee under the lease, or

(f) rights under a licence, as defined in the Coal Act, of the licensee., and.]

On section 5 as amended.

D. Jarvis: I want to know: what will be the predominant part. . . ? In this part here on the Park Act, there may be some confusion as to whether the Mines Act or the Park Act will be predominant in this instance.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite clear on the question, but I assume that the expropriation would be done under the Park Act but that compensation and those questions would be done under acts under my purview.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Section 6 approved.

[ Page 7630 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment on the preamble that I've tabled with the Clerks.

[PREAMBLE, in the sixth recital, by adding "with higher level plans under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and" after "carry out mining activities responsibly and in accordance".]

On the preamble as amended.

R. Neufeld: It's absolutely amazing that we just passed more amendments to the bill than there were sections in the bill to start with.

I want to have just a bit of clarification. We've got a few minutes left, and I want to ask the minister how he interprets that second "whereas" -- that "it is in the best interests of British Columbia that the mining industry be economically viable and globally competitive." Now, I know the minister has stood up many times in this House and tried to shift the blame for not much mining activity onto the global market. Part of that is, in fact, true.

I don't dispute that, but when I see "globally competitive" and "economically viable" in a preamble, maybe the minister could explain to me how his government is going to go about this. Are we going to see some massive tax decreases in this industry? Are we going to just. . . ? What are we going to see in the future so that this preamble will actually mean something to the industry, other than. . . ? They are great words, but how are you going to make it economically viable today? How are you going to make it globally competitive?

[5:45]

There are quite a number of letters that both the Premier and myself have received as a result of this bill and other initiatives. Generally, the comments. . . . I quoted Walter Selmer earlier, but I think this quote is useful: "I sincerely believe we have made significant progress toward making British Columbia a good place to explore." It goes on to outline the fact that for the first time in over three years, they're taking a serious look at exploration, and they hadn't planned to before.

It seems to me that that is a kind of early response to the bill and to the statements made by this government. I have other letters from people who are promoting mining projects in this province. Here's just a brief quote from a letter to me from the Taseko mine people: "I also want to let you know that the Taseko team is working hard to let the world know that the government of British Columbia strongly supports responsible mineral development, and that B.C. can compete for mining investment with any jurisdiction in the world."

They're nice words, and we're certainly gratified to receive them. I don't think that we want to stop at this point. There's a lot of work to do with the mining companies and with financiers, to let the world know that this is a place you can come to and do business. Beyond that, there are any number of topics that you could encompass under the issue of competitiveness, and I believe that with the talent -- the technical talent, the expertise, the talent of our workforce. . . .

In fact, I'll close on one note, having talked to Anders Bülow, the head of Boliden. As members know, he has recently acquired some mining interests in our province, and he told me, on examining one of the operations -- and he's from Sweden: "Their management and their efficiency is second to none." In fact, he says: "I'm taking some of those practices that I see here in British Columbia back home to Sweden, because I think we could gain from implementation there."

There's a lot of work to do to make any industry successful. There's no single thing you do; it's a series of things. But clearly we recognize that the international commodity market has a bearing and will continue to have a bearing over time on our ability to develop the mineral sector. The key, in terms of this statement of principle, is to become truly competitive so that you can compete; when the opportunity exists to compete, you can compete. I think if we can get there, we'll be doing fine.

D. Jarvis: On the preamble again, I just want to clarify that the minister is aware that mining is not like other land uses. Other land uses are readily visible and identifiable. When you're dealing with mining, in most instances there's a great difficulty because they are invisible and they're down in the subsurface, as you're aware. As long as he's prepared to realize that this is what mining is all about. And they need access to areas that aren't visible. Those which he tends to treat fairly, we assume with compensation, if he takes over. . . . The past record of this government isn't that way towards mining.

I'm going to vote in favour of this bill, but I do so with some great trepidation, because the minister's actions and what he has stated today do not really console a lot of people out there in that industry. He may have a few letters from individuals, but on the whole, everyone out there knows what this government has done in the past, and they really have no confidence in what they intend to do in the future.

Preamble as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 12, Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 7631 ]

PENSION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

It's important to note that these amendments have been reviewed by the respective pension boards. The boards have equal representation from government as the plan's sponsor and from employees as the plan's members and are independently chaired by the superannuation commissioner.

The first purpose of this bill is to allow part-time senior college administrative staff to contribute to the college pension plan. Full-time senior college administrative staff and part-time college instructors contribute to the plan. This amendment provides equitable treatment to part-time senior college administrative staff.

The second component of the bill will establish in the four public sector pension plans the opportunity for an advanced pension benefit pay-out to a plan member with a shortened life expectancy, to be established by regulation. The amendment allows the respective pension boards to recommend the terms of the early release of pension funds, based on a plan member's shortened life expectancy.

The third component of this bill provides for the option to separate the role of superannuation commissioner from that of the board chair. This proposal has been recommended by the pension boards. The provision will allow government, in close consultation with the pension boards, the option of separating the two roles. This amendment is prospective and strategic in nature to potentially allow expanded options with respect to successorship planning and pension plan governances.

The fourth purpose of this bill is to address minor drafting errors in the public service and teachers' pension plans.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to offer some very brief comments on the second reading of Bill 13, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. I would like to preface my remarks by first stating that the official opposition does not oppose this bill and in fact applauds the minister for the intent of these amendments. I would add, however, that there will be some specific questions I will pose during committee stage.

As the saying goes, the times they are a-changing. For that reason, it is important that we look at all pieces of legislation that affect people's lives, with a view to acknowledging these changing times. If we do recognize that people's lives have become more complicated, we must consider one very important area, and that is pension plans. It is important that pension plans be reviewed from time to time and that we respect the changes occurring in personal lifestyles, the changes occurring in mortality levels and even the changes occurring in the workplace due to the economic reality of the day. Some of the changes are of one's own volition; others are not.

The amendments I see being introduced in this bill are welcome from that perspective. What we are dealing with primarily in this bill is allowing for flexibility in pension payments, specifically for persons with shortened life expectancies. Hon. Speaker, that is a good objective and a supportable one. That is an objective that represents good public policy. The amendments introduced in Bill 13 invoke a degree of compassion, so I do support this, as do all members of the official opposition.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, 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, by leave I move that the following reports of the auditor general of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: 1997-98 report No. 1, "Earthquake Preparedness"; 1997-98 report No. 2, "Report on the 1996-97 Public Accounts"; 1997-98 report No. 3, "A Review of Governance and Accountability in the Regionalization of Health Services"; 1997-98 report No. 4 on compliance audits; the special report, "Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector"; and 1996-97 report No. 11, "Follow-up of Performance Audits Issued November 1993 to December 1995."

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

A. Sanders: To start off, I'm just going to ask the minister if he has a district-by-district breakdown of the allocation of the $5 million in year 1 of the K-to-3 initiative for this member.

[ Page 7632 ]

[2:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the member has a copy of the agreement-in-committee. It says very clearly that school districts are going to be providing the ministry -- with copies to their BCTF local -- staffing plans for each school that set out how the estimated funding was going to be used to hire staff in the classes at schools, the ministry receives it, looks at it and distributes the funds.

A. Sanders: We're talking about $5 million here. Surely the minister must have some idea as to where that $5 million came from. I hope it didn't come out of the air: he just picked a number, it looked good and made a good press release. There must have been originally a breakdown of the districts to say that $5 million was even remotely in the ballpark, even a little bit close. What kinds of projections did the minister use in order to come to the figure of $5 million? In other words, why wasn't it $10 million or $20 million or $200 million? Why is it $5 million? Surely the minister had more academic information than a single number with absolutely no breakdown to base a press release for the entire province on.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The amount in the agreement-in-committee is based on analysis of the enrolment provisions that are currently in force in districts around British Columbia. The $5 million is the extent of money available. We believe that the reductions contained in the agreement will be achieved with that $5 million. School districts will submit their plans; we will distribute the money.

A. Sanders: This minister has absolutely no idea how much money he needs. He doesn't even have a clue. Five million dollars is the amount he decided they would give up. He's put in some rigid initiatives that will start in September, and when new kids come into districts in October, those rigid initiatives will be in place for enrolment. I cannot believe that this minister doesn't have a clue about how much money is needed -- even a ballpark figure -- to put in the initiatives of a three-year agreement, which he has and wants people to sign and ratify when he doesn't know that $5 million is even on the scale of what we're talking about.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a three-year agreement: $5 million in the first year for class size reduction; an additional $20 million the second year, so that's a total of $25 million the second year; an additional $20 million the third year, so $45 million the third year. That's a total of $75 million over the three years. The analysis of current enrolment projections around the province show that this is the amount of money that will allow us to achieve the class size reductions that are in the agreement-in-committee.

A. Sanders: We've got all these educated people who spend all their days looking at figures, and the only thing that the minister can tell me is that he looks at enrolment projections and decides what he wants to spend $5 million on and that's how much the district gets. That is absolutely unbelievable. We're in a situation where we are having the estimates of Education, and the minister cannot provide me, as critic, with a breakdown of the allocation of the moneys for the K-to-3 initiative. He cannot provide me with a district-by-district breakdown of the capital funding allocation associated with that. He cannot give me feedback on how much the projections from each district are, which they will require in order to bring in the K-to-3 initiatives that this Premier's agreement states. There is absolutely no information, regardless of which way I look at it or go at it or question the minister.

My question to the minister: why are we having the Education estimates? Why bother? There's not one thing that you can tell me that has any merit or future outcome in terms of what's going to happen in the area of education in this fiscal year. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you -- then we'll sit down and call the vote.

A. Sanders: Be it known that if the minister really, really cared about this area, he would probably not have agreed to have the estimates called. Because they've been called. . . . I would assume that if he wants to call the vote, that means that he is here to mislead the public as to what is going on in the Ministry of Education and what is out there for kids, parents, teachers and trustees. And he doesn't have any information for me.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order, hon. Chair. The allegation is misleading. We're getting dangerously close to unparliamentary language. I'd ask the Chair's advice on whether the member should be asked to withdraw.

The Chair: I will caution the member on parliamentary and unparliamentary language. You may proceed.

A. Sanders: Thank you for that caution, hon. Chair.

I'd like the minister to prove to me that he is not giving misinformation. If we do not have the money in the votes for this initiative, if he cannot give me the district-by-district breakdown of the allocation, if he cannot provide the district-by-district moneys that those districts have submitted to him and he wants to call the vote so we can avoid embarrassing the ministry. . . . I'd like him to give me one piece of information that I can take home to my constituents that tells me that this hasn't been done on purpose.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I read Hansard. I think this is now the third day that we've focused on this matter. Lots of information has been provided.

A. Sanders: Most of the information has been provided by the critic, not by the minister. I've looked into how much it's going to cost the districts. We talked this morning about the greater Victoria school district and that, of the $5 million that this minister says is available -- which we can't even find -- it's going to cost them almost a million dollars themselves, or 19 percent of the entire allocation. When you look at other districts, there are many that are in the same circumstance. I'll take one as an example: the district of Langley. Their cost for year 1 is $1,736,000, which is more than 19 percent of the allocation.

In other words, Langley and Victoria -- Victoria being a population-neutral area -- are going to require more than half

[ Page 7633 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, we have committed to the parties that are considering the agreement-in-committee to fund that agreement and those initiatives. The cost will be $75 million for the class size reduction initiative and another $75 million for the initiative to provide equitable access to professionals who work in our schools outside the classroom. The cost will be another $50 million for the 2 percent increase in teachers' salaries, effective April 1, 2000. The parties now have this proposal in front of them. Staff met with trustees at the BCPSEA last weekend to clarify aspects of this agreement for them. As ratification is reached and implementation begins, school districts will be providing to the ministry their plans for implementation, and funds will be allocated.

A. Sanders: And $5 million will be allocated. The minister has no intention of allocating the necessary moneys for the school districts; that will come to pass. And this minister will be proven to have given misinformation.

There's a press release today -- which says exactly what I was saying this morning -- that's come to my attention. It's from Prince George, the minister's own district, on May 6:

"Prince George schools will get dirtier, less healthy and less friendly as a result of budget cuts announced last night by the board of district 57 -- Prince George, Mackenzie, Valemount, McBride. Marilyn Hannah, president of CUPE Local 3742, the union whose members took a major hit in last night's budget, was dismayed at the board's apparent lack of understanding of just what custodial staff do.

" `The constant budget cuts imposed on support services like custodial, clerical and teaching assistants are seriously affecting the environment in which Prince George children are expected to learn. . .and it is affecting the morale of support staff who are supposed to continue doing more work with fewer resources.'

" 'Last night's budget is a continuation of this board's shortsightedness and the Ministry of Education's doublespeak,' said Hannah. 'My local membership is angry at being left out to dry by the Ministry of Education. Their media releases regarding increased funds to education in B.C. are clearly not directed at all parts of the school system. Meanwhile, the ministry does nothing about the unfair practices brought about by site-based budgeting. Neither does the province seem concerned about the constant cuts to school infrastructure and programs that provide support for students, teachers and parents.'

"The Ministry of Education announced budget increases in every school district for the 1998-99 school year, including reduced class sizes, pending the outcome of the teachers' contract. If district 57 is any example, none of those promised improvements to the classroom include additional backup help. `For CUPE members and the people directly affected by our work -- the teachers, students and parents -- the 1998-99 school year will be another battle against even heavier workloads and increasing low morale. We can't do all the work that is expected, so it won't get done.'

"CUPE Local 3742 went head to head with the school board this year when the board attempted to reduce custodial services from 12 months to ten. 'While the board has relented for the moment,' says Hannah, 'it is clear from this budget and remarks by the board chair. . .that they are not finished downsizing support services in the district.' "

Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, we had this Liberal opposition crying crocodile tears in the chamber during question period over a youth who, regrettably, did not receive the job that he had hoped to receive. After a relentless record of attacks on every youth option that this government has brought forward, on every single youth option -- whether it be tuition freezes, expansion of post-secondary education, Youth Works or the most extensive Summer Works program for college, university and high school students in the province's history -- every single initiative, this Liberal critic wishes workers in school districts in Prince George to believe that somehow they are on their side. That is simply not credible to workers in this province. They know who has been leading the attacks on the Labour Code and working conditions of people in this province. They know whose political platform calls for 15 percent tax cuts and $3 billion worth of service cuts to British Columbians. They know who included, in the $105 million lift to the school districts, the 1 percent lift for CUPE contracts and recognized those costs in the money allocated to school boards.

The management of school district 57 is in the hands of the locally elected trustees. This year they had available to them, from the block grant, $116.8 million, a $1.7 million increase over last year, even though the projection for enrolment was essentially static.

We continue to fund school districts, and we ask trustees to allocate those moneys fairly to make sure that students get a quality education. That is their job. We seek to do ours.

[3:00]

In terms of tuition, for the record, the minister is absolutely incorrect in terms of my voting against it. I voted for the tuition freeze, and the reason I voted for it was that it was necessary. This government has screwed up the economy so much that the only thing you can do for students anymore is to give them a tuition freeze. They sure as heck can't go and find a job to work at to pay down the student loans that they have, because there aren't any jobs for them.

Let's talk about portables. This is the third wizard initiative of the Premier in the announcements that he made before the announcements. We've heard the portables arguments before. We've heard Mr. Harcourt stand on his election platform saying he was going to get rid of portables. Immediately, from 1991 to 1995, the number of portable increased 95 percent to 3,091. In Richmond and Surrey, portables arrive on the site of a new school before the school even opens its doors. There are portables in Richmond that have been there for 18 years. They are health hazards, they are WCB hazards, they are safety hazards and they are not where we thought our kids were going to end up being in school.

[ Page 7634 ]

Let's look at the facts. In greater Victoria, 15 new portables will be required in year 2. That will be a cost in total in one school district with the implementation of the K-to-3 initiative of $750,000, plus $5,000 to heat, light and clean those portables. Where in the initiative is the money accounted for with respect to the purchase of portables when the ministry has said that we are in fact going to phase out portables over the next five years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd ask the member to back up just a little bit. When we are talking about the agreement-in-committee, I said very clearly that the commitment was to spend $370 million to build 1,000 new classrooms to accommodate the increased number of classes. That was on top of the $338 million committed in this year's capital budget, both for the normal capital plan and for a plan to cut in half -- not eliminate, but cut in half -- the number of portables over the next five years. We're committing just over $38 million in the current capital budget to that -- on top of around $300 million for other capital projects both new and ongoing.

I must say that I received the news release of the member opposite's on the growth in portables -- actually, I think a day or two after I had my office provide her with a snapshot of information over the last seven years so that we could discuss the portables issue in a semi-rational way. I was quite disappointed in the news release. Of course, it totally misrepresented the data that had been provided -- absolutely totally. In 1991 -- the ministry was able to tell me and the member opposite -- there were 1,656 "eligible portables" in the province. That's the ministry term for portables that they have said are needed to accommodate classes under a sort of standardized class size plan. They said that in the year 1997-98, total eligible portables were 1,933. Yup, there had been a growth. The member is right. But 95 percent? No.

There is also a line in this data that shows a total of "ineligible portables" -- in other words, how many other buildings did school districts acquire? For the first year, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the ministry had not collected that data, so there is none available. In '93-94 there were about 1,200, and that declined to around 1,150 in '97-98. Now, when we said, "Let's do a portable reduction initiative," we said: "Let's take all of them -- eligible, ineligible, whatever." Add them up, and you have around 3,000 in the province, and we want to get rid of half of them in the next five years.

Yes, portables are a serious problem, but the Liberal misrepresentation of the record simply does not do justice to what the problem actually is. We have a real opportunity here, for two reasons. First, we are putting more money, not less, into our capital plan this year -- $338 million, up from last year -- significantly up from the just over $300 million that we had in 1997-98, which we debated in this chamber a year ago. So more money, not less.

The other opportunity we have is that because enrolment is not expected to grow by 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 next year, as it has in the past, but rather at 8,000 or perhaps lower, if the school districts are right -- and they're projecting even lower enrolment growth -- that gives us a real opportunity to cut into some of the backlog by not just keeping constant but by ramping up construction and therefore providing an opportunity to move students from portables into permanent schools. When the projections announced last year and this year are completed, the plans calls for the elimination of 1,048 portables and the elimination of over half the number of portables in the next five years.

A. Sanders: I reject the characterization that the minister has given about the portables. He's telling us that there are only 1,933 portables, because he has decided to classify them as eligible and ineligible. That would be like me having ten apples, five of them McIntosh and five of them Gala, and when you asked me how many apples I had, me saying five. I tell you five, because you didn't ask me the combination of those two kinds of apples. A portable is a portable is a portable, and the definition of ineligible portable is one "acquired by school districts to serve specific programs or accommodate the student overflow caused by lower class arrangements specified in local collective agreements." Local collective agreements specify student-teacher ratios and may drive the need for school districts to provide extra portable classrooms.

These are all portables. They look like a portable; they smell like a portable; they feel like a portable. You touch them, and they feel like a portable -- they're a portable. If the minister wants to say that the ministry only paid for 1,933 of the portables, then that's okay. If the other ones -- the other 1,158 -- are portables that school districts paid for, then say that. That's what we're talking about. What I'm saying is that in British Columbia, there are 3,000 portables that kids are going to school in or doing some programs in. I am very interested to hear any other interpretation of this number by the minister.

A question to the minister: what is the number of eligible and ineligible portables -- the total number of portables that this minister says will be in British Columbia, based on this portable-reduction strategy that he has? What will be the number of portables in five years, if we do the calculations based on demographics, population growth, etc., that he has in his office today to explain the number of portables that will be in B.C.?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't know. Something went wrong in the communication here, perhaps because the member was engaged in something else rather than listening -- as she seems to be now.

I said very clearly that the portable-reduction strategy was based on the figure of 3,091. I said very clearly that it was based on a combination of "eligible" and "ineligible." That's the way we are proceeding. I said very clearly that we intend to cut that number in half and will have just over 1,500 portables on school grounds in this province in five years. That's the whole goal of this strategy. I said very clearly that the only thing misleading was the Liberal critic's use of the data which this ministry provided to her.

A. Sanders: I'm noticing that the minister is using the word that he chastised me for. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess -- which makes me wonder why he did that in the first place.

A Voice: Posturing.

A. Sanders: Posturing, yeah.

[ Page 7635 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The capital projects that I think the member is referring to is the school projects list for '98-99, which lists construction projects, planning projects, site acquisition projects. It lists for Victoria two construction projects for the coming year: View Royal Elementary and Oaklands Elementary -- one a new school and one an upgrade -- and says that the result of the View Royal Elementary project will be the elimination of three portables. Yes, that is the project count for this year for Victoria.

Earlier in our discussions this morning, staff and I informed the member that one of the realities about the school system in Victoria is that they have a large amount of surplus space. In fact, they're operating at around 80 percent of capacity of the buildings they now have. Victoria has some challenges in particular areas, but overall, unlike some rapidly growing districts, they have a surfeit of space right now.

[3:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. And if you turn to the second page, about a third of the way down, it sums up school construction projects announced in 1998-99 -- that's this list: the creation of 17,200 spaces, the elimination of 514 portables, school construction projects currently underway from previous years, creation of another 21,500 spaces and the elimination of 534 portables. So last year's projects and these, when completed and opened, will result in the elimination of 1,048 portables.

A. Sanders: It is my understanding that the 15 new portables that were required in Victoria in year 2 of the K-to-3 initiative are not the same portables as the three portables here, and in fact are 15 portables above and beyond the three portables being removed in this construction project.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has referred to a document which staff do not have. She says this is a document from the school district in Victoria that says it will require some 15 additional classes as a result of the K-to-3 initiative. My response now is the same as my response this morning: that's part of the pressures that we'll be dealing with through the construction of 1,000 additional classrooms through the class size reduction initiative and our commitment of $370 million to that project.

A. Sanders: How much does it cost to move a portable from one location to the other and set it up?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've never done it; staff advise me it costs around $7,000 or $8,000.

A. Sanders: Actually, it costs $13,000, but the ministry only funds it for $7,000. The other part of the money is funded by the school district, so every time they move a portable they actually go in the hole $5,000 and more.

Is it correct that in this year's budget the ministry has decreased its funding for eligible portables?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: Does the minister have a breakdown of the actual number of portables in Richmond, Surrey and Coquitlam?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff are digging that out, at least for two of them. I know I've seen it for Richmond and Surrey; I think we have one for Coquitlam as well.

A. Sanders: I am pleased to hear that the minister has given me an actual number of portables. He said that 1,500 will be the target number for the decrease in portables. That will prevent us from trying to figure out what the number was for moving portables onto sites, constructing schools and then moving them off, and finding that in fact 50 percent of the portables had been moved but we still had the same number. So I appreciate that.

I have a couple of questions on something called the safe schools initiative -- another one of the announcements by the minister. Does the minister have a breakdown of the moneys available to each of the 1,700 schools in B.C. for the safe schools initiative?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I take it that we've. . . . I ask this question to the critic as we move to what seems a new topic. Are we really done with the portables issue? Can I tell staff to put those binders away, or are we continuing with that?

As far as the safe schools initiative, I know what the link is here. The Safe School project in Burnaby is actually run out of a portable -- a non-eligible portable, by the way. There are non-eligible portables that have nothing to do with classes; they are used for resource centres, administration and a bunch of other things. That's one of the reasons why, in the past, the ministry has not treated them the same way as it has treated eligible ones. When we started on the portable-reduction strategy, we said very clearly: "We're going to treat them all the same, add them all up and cut the number in half."

The safe schools initiative that was announced in Victoria a couple of weeks ago was for $1 million. About $100,000 of that will be devoted to running the Safe School Centre in Burnaby -- and the staff for it, with all the access it has, by various means of communications, to districts around the province and to parent groups, PACs, individual teachers and principals. We will use $750,000 to develop resources largely around initiatives to do all we can to help schools create bully-free playgrounds and schools, so that kids can feel safe and accepted as they learn. Around $150,000 will be used in providing training to schools and districts that require it. We want to get the best possible use from the available resources rather than distributing it widely school by school.

A. Sanders: What does that mean? If I'm in a school in Vernon, what specific access do I have to that particular safe schools initiative? What does it mean for me as a teacher, or for a child, in a school in any community?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two things that the ministry and the Safe School Centre are working on. The first, as I said, is the production of materials on anti-bullying initiatives. This will be distributed to all schools in the province beginning this spring. Then, starting in the fall, through the Safe School Centre are opportunities for local teachers, principals and parents who are interested in this to have access to training, again provided through the Safe School Centre and through

[ Page 7636 ]

A. Sanders: In the minister's experience, where do most of the problems with violence occur at school? Is it in the classroom or on the school grounds?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I find that a hard question to answer, because I'm not sure I see the problem exactly in that way -- sort of as a space issue in the hallways or outside of the school. Or the third part, I guess, is on the way to and from school or in school-related groups in the community.

What I think does carry over from one site to another, whether it's the classroom, corridors and lunchroom, or the playground or school-related sites, is the way that kids treat one another. I think that's crucial on measures to reduce bullying, intimidation and violence. When I toured the province last fall, I found some schools that I thought had very thoughtful programs. They involve students taking ownership of their own schools, saying: "This is a community in which everybody should be treated well and in which violence and intimidation or harassment have no place." Others, frankly, were looking at the symptoms of the problem of playground violence, or of some sort of violent incident in the community, and were just starting to think about how it was to be addressed.

The program we've launched is trying to build on some very positive things that are happening. It's important to create an environment in schools where kids are working with one another. So this is the initiative that we're launching. I think the objectives of it are as described in the materials that the member received at the news conference.

A. Sanders: Would the minister concur that one of the paramount assurances for parents that their children are safe at school is supervision on school grounds? In fact, the School Act says that we are accountable for that. Would the minister comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is clearly one of the parameters.

It's interesting, though. Many of the letters that I've received and remember reading on this issue from concerned parents over the past year focused almost equally on things that their children were experiencing on the way to or from school. It is a challenge that has to reach out from beyond school and to community. I wish I could say that I believe there is any one body or agency that had the magic bullet that could put an end to this problem -- maybe magic bullet is not a very good analogy when we're talking about violence -- the magic wand that could be waved to create an inclusive and tolerant sense of community in schools. I don't think there is. Supervision is part of it, but perhaps equally is how kids see their own school and their relationship to it and to each other within it.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that if there are deficits in the amount that school boards have to fund the collective agreements -- besides the initiatives, which the minister says he will support -- some of the people who supervise on school grounds will be among those who will be cut by school boards trying to balance their books?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yet again the member invites me to run school districts. They are going to allocate their budgets. We provided them with significant additional funding this year, and we'll be funding the initiatives through the agreement-in-committee.

There are some positive things happening. Actually, the critic and I were both at the launch of this initiative. It had a playground program that included supervision on the playground by both adults and peers who had been trained in violence reduction and conflict resolution. I had the pleasure of having lunch with some of the grade 6 and grade 7 students who were doing this, and they talked to me about the difference this had made on the playground of that school.

[3:30]

As government we have the duty, under the School Act, regulation 8, to make sure that we supervise kids who are on and around school grounds after school and during the period of time when they are leaving for home and are in our schools' areas of responsibility. That is one of the very critical areas that this agreement-in-committee can seriously jeopardize: the supervision of kids at school when they are not physically sitting in the classroom under the guidance of their school teacher. As a parent, that concerns me considerably.

Has a critical evaluation of violence in the school yard been done by the ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has not done such a study. I know the member has a lot of interest in this area, and like me, she has spent a lot of time in schools in the last year. I think I said earlier to this committee that one of the surprises for me, as I toured 60 or 70 schools last fall, was how often this topic came to the fore in discussions with parents, teachers, administration and staff. The issue almost always was framed not in terms of a single incident of real violence or criminal behaviour that might have occurred but in terms of the bullying, intimidation and harassment that was occurring. The concerns were widespread.

As I said to the member, I also found schools where, as a parent and a former teacher, I could detect real differences in the way kids were interacting with one another on playgrounds and in hallways. In some cases, you'd have the level of energy and animation that you usually expect, but it didn't cross the line to intimidation or piling on or whatever -- and in others it did. Supervision didn't seem to be the defining

[ Page 7637 ]

I think we have to look behind the behaviour to how kids are perceiving one another in their actions and to what they know or don't know about conflict resolution. We're swimming -- and they're swimming -- in a media sea that too often says to our children that the only way to deal with conflict is to punch somebody in the nose. That's the message that too often comes to them through media, whether it's through cartoons or movies or. . . . That is, regrettably, too much a part of popular culture. They model themselves at times on little Ninja Turtles, and then, when they're older, Transformers that combine characteristics of flesh and machine and are somehow supposed to be impervious to pain. Yet that's not real; kids know it's not real.

If they're talked to and work is done with them on the perception of others and how to resolve conflict, real progress can be made. That's what this initiative is looking at -- not necessarily the criminal behaviour of a few. The great majority of kids in our schools are never, ever going to commit an indictable crime. We need to liaise with police and others to make sure that those are dealt with.

This initiative is focused differently, and I think it's focused in the right place. It's not quite as sexy as saying that we're going to have people with guns wandering around the school yards or whatever. This isn't the U.S., and the issue we're dealing with is not that. The issue is how to create respect and tolerance among students, which will inform how they behave towards one another.

A. Sanders: You know, if you're truly interested in preventing violence at school, the best thing you can do is have adult supervision. I truly believe that my children know right from wrong, but I also know that if I was never home. . . . I'm not sure, if they were left to their own devices day after day, what I would come home to. It wouldn't be the same standard of violence control or the same rules of behaviour that I would want to have, without them knowing that their mom was at home -- or at least in the yard or around -- for them to be responsible and accountable to for what they were doing when I was not supervising them.

I think that's true of all kids. If you are truly interested in the control of violence. . . . Again, as the minister said, I'm not talking about guns and knives and stuff like that; I'm talking about whether your kids get pummeled at recess. I'm talking about whether or not they can get on the bus without someone grabbing the back of their coat and throwing them to the ground. I'm talking about the common garden-variety stuff that all of us went through as kids and that all of our kids go through on a daily basis when they go to our public schools.

The one thing that is of concern to me is that in the management of this agreement-in-committee, we will be cutting these people who supervise in our schools. We have, under the School Act, the right and the obligation to supervise our kids. We cannot cut teachers. Teachers have collective agreements that do not require them to supervise on the school grounds anymore.

Incidentally, I think there are probably quite a few people who would say that that's when the violence and incidence of problems in school yards increased -- when there weren't adults on the school grounds that these kids knew, that these kids respected and that these kids were responsible to when they went back into their classrooms. They knew darn well that if they did something on the school grounds, they had to go into their grade 5 or 6 classroom later on and face what that action was. These kids respect our staff and our schools, and I think there has been a difference since the discontinuation of teacher supervisions at noon hour and lunch.

That again is something between school boards and their employees. However, under regulation 8 of the School Act, we do, as government, have the responsibility to carry out the duties of supervision. We have been doing that by hiring ancillary union workers to supervise on the school ground. In some cases, they don't have the connection between the children in the same way that the teachers do. They have been supervising, however, and if we accept this agreement-in- committee, they will be threatened.

It's not good enough for the minister to say: "Well, we're going to give them some curriculum. We're going to have, you know, a portable set up with safe schools initiatives." It's a noble thought and a laudable idea, but it will not get to the kernel -- the heart, the nub -- of what the problem is, and that is adult supervision.

You can teach children how to behave, and you can show them what's right and wrong, and that's called parenting. Then you send them out to school, and if there's no one there to supervise, they may not make the right decisions. They may not make the correct decisions. In fact, we've put $1 million into a program against bullying, and we've got more problems in the school yard because there are no adults there.

I'd like the minister to comment on what kinds of studies and initiatives he will set up in the next couple of years to look critically at how many adults are on our playgrounds and to ascertain whether we get to a concerning or worrisome situation in year 2, especially, of this agreement because staff who are non-teaching staff have been removed through layoff procedures because school boards could not afford to have them there.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the critic's efforts to tie every issue or potential issue to those she wishes to oppose, which are the initiatives to reduce class size and provide non-enrolling support for kids in our schools. I understand that, but I want to leave that aside, because supervision is an important issue. It's something that is required under the School Act, and it's something I expect schools and districts to carry out.

But with all respect -- and I want to say this in as non-confrontational, non-partisan way as possible -- I don't think that supervision, by itself, gets to the root. Supervision is a way of dealing with the symptoms. It's a way of dealing with the intimidation, harassment and bullying that can occur.

The goal here with the safe schools project is to get behind those behaviours and to figure out how we work with kids on ways of resolving conflict other than intimidation, bullying and harassment, with the creation of an atmosphere in our schools that is more tolerant and accepting, that doesn't accept harassment or intolerance as what can go on in the school. Frankly, that has to start with kids themselves.

Kids are not always with adults. They're surely not there going to and from school. That's one of the largest concerns I heard from parents. Inappropriate behaviour occurring on school grounds wasn't their concern so much as what's happening on the way to or from school, and no amount of supervision on school grounds is going to deal with that if kids are taking inappropriate ways of resolving conflict off the grounds and dealing with it there.

[ Page 7638 ]

I think that's the challenge we have in schools. Yes, supervision is absolutely important. I'm not disagreeing with the member. But the behaviours we're seeing, the ones that make a grade 5 kid say, "I've got a stomach ache; I'd rather stay home than face the walk to school," and the bullying that he or she thinks they might get. . . . We've got to get behind that and figure out how we create an atmosphere where that doesn't occur.

[3:45]

Then on the school grounds there is less concern from parents, because we have supervisors. They may not be people who the children know as well as their classroom teachers, but there are adults on the playground. I would say that, more than what we teach them in curriculum -- although that is important, too -- it is that adult exposure that probably makes a differential between the to-and-from-school and on the playgrounds.

I am concerned that the on-school-grounds level of supervision and the to-and-from-school level of supervision could be, in the next three years, the same thing. Therefore, on the school grounds we will have increased violence, because we'll have no differential between supervision on the school grounds and on the way to and from school. That is the concern. It's all well and good to give our children behavioural modification and curriculum to teach them how they should defend themselves and what kind of behavioural circumstances will cause them to get into trouble. But there's no substitute for good old-fashioned adult supervision for children who are in elementary school. I can't make that point any stronger; it is absolutely essential to me.

Let's talk about the School Act a bit in terms of duties of supervision. Has the minister undertaken any accountability studies to see that the duties of supervision are being performed at our schools in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is a responsibility of boards under the act.

A. Sanders: Again, one of the things that the comptroller general has told us is that we really don't know what's going on very much in schools. We have all sorts of numbers. Violence is a very large issue and something that we all are concerned about in our society. Has the minister ever thought about looking at the accountability mechanisms for this specific area of responsibility, especially in view of the Reena Virk murder, and the very short time since it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a number of responses I'd like to make. I'd like to deal first very directly with the reference to the tragic circumstances regarding the murder of Reena Virk, which, as the member knows, did not take place on school grounds. It is reflective, obviously, of some very disturbing behaviours by a small minority of young people in our society. But I'm not sure that the connection between that and the issues we're discussing here is that high.

It does underscore the point I was trying to make. This sort of example says to me that what kids are doing with kids and how they are acting with one another, on or off school grounds, is one of the issues that we as parents and as legislators need to be concerned about.

I've asked staff about other adjuncts to the anti-violence initiative. We are going to be surveying school districts and schools this summer around how they are dealing with inappropriate behaviours, as far as suspensions or expulsions from school. I would also point out that one of the features of the accreditation process that schools around the province go through is community expectations. Part of those community expectations is how kids are working with kids. It involves many of the issues that the member and I have been discussing.

A. Sanders: Regulation 8 of the School Act lays out the duties of supervision for all of our schools. Many of the individuals I've spoken to whose children go to school do not feel that regulation 8 is, in fact, enforced. What weight does the minister give regulation 8 in terms of laying out the duties of supervision?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer -- and I'll give a short one this time -- is that I expect school districts to adhere to that regulation, as to other ministry regulations.

A. Sanders: Well, if we don't have any feedback on how schools are doing, it's really hard for us to have an idea of whether we're accountable. That brings us to other areas of accountability. We collect a lot of numbers from our school districts, but maybe we're not collecting the ones that are important to us all, such as critical evaluation of violence in terms of whether the School Act is being carried out with respect to duties of supervision.

The comptroller general did a report on accountability in the K-to-12 education system. In that report he outlined general and specific recommendations for the minister to enact. Could the minister please fully explain what he has done in the following areas to comply with the comptroller general's report? The first area is to ensure implementation of a results-based accountability and performance management framework for the system.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the last time we did estimates, the OCG -- the office of the comptroller general -- had either just released or was just about to release his report. One of the elements of that was that there is a phase 2, which was to actually go out to school districts and see how accountability looked from the other end. The OCG is, as I understand it, just in the process of winding up some of his fieldwork on that -- he did that in late April -- and will, I suspect, be releasing phase 2 of his examination of accountability from a school-district perspective in the next little while. I've been advised by staff that he hopes to have that work completed and released publicly by the end of June.

One of the large elements that I think the member is referring to is some results-based efforts to make sure that

[ Page 7639 ]

A. Sanders: I am aware of the second phase of the OCG report, the fieldwork. Again, what we're trying to quantify here is very difficult. We're trying to quantify what the level of service delivery is, where it's happening in the classrooms and in the schools, how you take in aboriginal factors, ESL factors and dispersion factors in population, and evaluating intellectual, social and human parameters and trying to measure those parameters, which is never an easy job. Nevertheless, at a time when accountability is a very important factor to most people and funding constraints increase and pressures increase for delivery of services, the OCG report in education is a very important tool. Could the minister state clearly the corporate goals and objectives in directing and managing this system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm really curious as to what the member is asking for. I'm sure I could give her a very long and very fancy mission statement for our public school system. But I think what most parents want is to assure themselves that their kids are achieving their potential in all areas, that they have some clear measures of that and that schools are reporting to the public and, through me, to the Legislature on attainments.

We have a variety of ways of doing accountability. I'll say to the member that two of the most important are, first, the provincial learning assessment program we've talked about, which is kicking in this year and, as I said, is very comprehensive in evaluation of fundamental skills attained by our students across British Columbia. A second large component of accountability is through the accreditation process. It involves a significant number of schools in any one year working to identify both strengths and weaknesses within their schools and, where there are weaknesses, developing plans to improve.

I must say to the member that not all schools pass that accreditation. I feel that it's a real process that involves both education professionals and the community. As we discussed last year, we need to make sure that it's a process that is seen by trustees and teachers and others as having real results in real improvements in our schools.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

The third thing I want to refer the member to is that subsequent to the OCG's report, the ministry has been sitting down with partner groups to identify some high priority areas for working on improved accountability. We've identified three that we intend to be moving forward on in the coming year. These are three key indicators, we've called them, that we want to measure to see how our kids are doing.

One of them is tied to some of the learning assessment: literacy, just basic literacy. How are we doing? The second one is both accountability for school completion and what measures we can take to improve it. The third is in the broad area of citizenship. There has been a lot of concern about how we're teaching the responsibilities that our youth will have as they move out of school and into leadership positions in our communities. That's an area that we -- partners in education, trustees, teachers, parents and others -- want to place some focus on. Those are three areas which in the last year work has been either ongoing or accelerated in response to the OCG report and to other concerns about making sure that our schools are accomplishing what we wish them to.

[4:00]

I think literacy and citizenship are laudable goals, and I think that those are certainly objectives that we would want to include. I would imagine the capital construction one would be classified under financial goals in terms of the information matrix.

In the OCG report, the comptroller general indicated a specific recommendation in his summary. The specific recommendation was: what has the minister done to continue to improve the ability of the Ministry of Education to report on the performance of the education system relative to the system's goals and report on the relationship between funding and results?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two large parts of it are things that I just talked to the member about: the whole provincial learning assessment program, which is tied to learning objectives in the curriculum, and the accreditation program, which is tied to what we expect our schools to achieve. I want to make sure that the member understands that I share the concern here, but I don't want to engage in the collection of information that's not going to help. I want to make sure that we're really focusing on the areas that make a difference to us. I mean, our schools are doing a pretty good job. We have the highest completion rate we've ever had in our province's history. We're sending more kids on to post-secondary education than we ever have before in British Columbia. So we have a pretty good system; what we need to do is focus on the quality improvements. I've talked about two major initiatives -- the learning assessment and the accreditation programs -- that I think will have real long-term benefits in improving the quality of services that our kids receive. I've also mentioned initiatives in the areas of literacy, school completion and citizenship.

A. Sanders: What has the minister done in the Ministry of Education with respect to the specific recommendation in the OCG report that he provide school boards with direction in terms of performance expectations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the ways that we're working on that particular aspect of the OCG report is by actually including in letters to school boards, accompanying the budget process, expectations in some of the areas. We intend to move forward on that with a request for hard numbers in the next year. That's continuing work with the partnership group that I

[ Page 7640 ]

A. Sanders: Another specific recommendation made by the comptroller general is that the minister require school boards to report regularly on results they are achieving and their plans for improvement. In the last year, since we discussed this, what mechanisms have been put in place to achieve that end?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I reference what I said in answer to the last question. Those areas of literacy, completion and citizenship are the areas where we're developing the measures we're going to be requiring of school boards.

I also reference an area that I think is of interest both to the member and to myself, and that is how our school system provides education to kids from a first nations background. A variety of reports, including the 1995-96 ministry report, identified severe difficulties in how our school system was serving first nations kids. The other piece that we're working on, as far as getting better data, is looking at extending personal identification numbers -- provincial education numbers; that's p-e-n, not p-i-n; this is not for your automatic bank machine -- into post-secondary, so that we can de-track and evaluate how well students have been prepared for their work in education in the whole K-to-16 education system.

A. Sanders: The OCG report also stated that the ministry needed to work on the roles and responsibilities of the ministry and school boards, and that these should be reviewed and clarified in the following areas. The first area where the roles and responsibilities of the ministry and school boards needed to be reviewed was spending authority. What has the ministry done since the report to improve or review that particular item?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's a work in progress that has not been completed.

A. Sanders: The second area was teaching performance. What has the minister done to that end?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Through work with the education partners in the areas, I've identified literacy, school completion and citizenship. Part of that work is around ensuring quality of teaching.

A. Sanders: That kind of goes back, again, to 44 ESL teachers who will be needed in Richmond. We're not sure where they are and how we're going to find them, and whether we will be accountable to have the best teachers we could have, or, in fact, whether we will train them on the job and have money provided for that.

The OCG report also stated in the roles and responsibilities of boards and ministry that we need to have more work done in the area of resource evaluations. What has the ministry done since the report to improve in that area?

Hon. P. Ramsey: One piece of work that the ministry has undertaken in this area of resources is to try to narrow the list of recommended resources by grade level -- grade collections of resources -- to a smaller recommended list. Now, this in no way prevents a district from saying: "We think we have a better idea over here." I want to narrow down what the ministry is recommending, so that we've got a tighter focus on what resources we hope would be available in schools across British Columbia, either those resources or comparable ones.

A. Sanders: Following the OCG report, what has the minister done to define the roles and responsibilities under the title "Relationship to Education Organizations"?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A couple of things. In the largest sense that work is a work in progress -- ongoing through the provincial education committee and in other ways where the various partnership groups are brought together. I would also go back and say that one of the results of that has been the engagement of the educational partners around accountability in the three areas that I've been talking about. The final thing that I want to mention -- as far as dealing with partnership groups -- is that we, as the ministry attempting to work with partnership groups, are increasingly funding specific projects that have specific outcomes that can benefit the system, rather than simply wide-open grants. A good example of that is the advocacy project that we funded through the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

A. Sanders: Following the OCG report, what has the minister done to define or clarify roles and responsibilities in the area of school performance?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I continued and improved the accreditation process, hon. Chair.

A. Sanders: What has the minister done to achieve that objective?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The whole process of accreditation is fairly complex, as the member knows. It involves schools, staff. . .whatever. One of the major pieces of work was trying to make it a process that focused more on student outcomes and reduced the number of criteria -- from, I think it was, 80 or so down to around 30 -- to get a tighter focus on what I think both the OCG report and the ministry felt were the key areas that we needed to focus on. So that has, I hope, been a major improvement in the accreditation process. It seems to be well received by people in the field who are actually engaged in accreditation work at their own schools.

A. Sanders: Is it true that accreditation reports, once completed, are not available to the public?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, they are public documents.

A. Sanders: For the record, could the minister tell me how one acquires the reports on the accreditation of schools? Is that through freedom of information, or is it a public report that is available to anyone?

Hon. P. Ramsey: They're available at schools, at school districts and at the ministry. In fact, some schools that I've toured sort of had them on display. They're very proud of the work they've done -- the student-focused goals and measures that they'd set up for their own schools.

[4:15]

[ Page 7641 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've already referenced two of the major pieces that school districts have to achieve that: the accreditation process and the provincial learning assessment process.

A. Sanders: What work has been done for school boards with respect to setting their own performance targets relative to provincial standards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This year, through the provincial learning assessment program, we specified grades and subjects. In subsequent years we intend to be bringing in expectations within those grades and subjects. Part of that work, though, I must say, is still in process with boards. I also want to see, as the ministry does, what the office of the comptroller general says about how school boards perceive their role in that accountability relationship.

A. Sanders: Well, I hope he doesn't ask them too soon. I'm not sure if boards understand any more what their role is and what their accountability is and how they fit into the system after the agreement-in-committee was brought down by this Premier.

Could the minister outline what work has been done on the recommendation by the OCG that school boards report actual performance against planned performance and provincial standards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School district annual reports include a comparison between the school district and provincial. . . . As far as a comparison to expectations, that's work in progress.

A. Sanders: We talked a bit last year about the large diversity in the quality of school annual reports. What has the minister done since that time to increase the accountability and the matrix on which these reports are made so that the information is more easily cross-referenced?

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the things that the ministry did was to actually give individual districts feedback on their reports relative to precisely what the member and I have been talking about. We're now awaiting the second round of reports to see if this advice has been taken and is reflected in them. We're attempting to ask school boards to be a fair bit more consistent with the sort of information that they report, without wishing to intrude on their desire at times to highlight the different aspects of their operations that they feel are important to members of their communities.

A. Sanders: There were specific recommendations made by the OCG report for the ministry to follow up. The first specific recommendation was that the ministry should identify and publish the most significant learning outcomes expected for students. Has this occurred?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Work is ongoing through the curriculum branch. We expect to be doing the first round of publication of that this fall.

A. Sanders: Secondly, ". . .to annually conduct literacy- and numeracy-skill assessments every year for all students in grades 4, 7, 10 and 12 and to integrate them with the provincial grade 12 examination program. . . ." Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've already referenced the provincial learning assessment programs in grades 4, 7 and 10. The integration with grade 12 will be occurring in the next year.

A. Sanders: The third one is: ". . .to measure and report changes in student achievement, skill level and retention trends over time."

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've referenced three of the major things that are involved in this. One was the extension of the education number into the post-secondary system so you actually have some measures of that transition. I talked about the PLAP and being able to develop, over time, a clear reading of where achievement is going in those crucial areas. And finally, we're working with the partner groups on the measures that I think the member was talking about in terms of completion.

A. Sanders: What has the ministry done with respect to requiring reporting of classroom assessments -- in other words, teacher-assigned assessments -- and their comparison with provincial assessments, cross-referencing the two?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This work is awaiting the outcome of phase 2 of the OCG report, which deals with classroom teachers and districts.

A. Sanders: I'll use this moment to ask when phase 2 will be published and available for perusal by us.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I advised this committee, probably only 15 minutes ago, that the OCG expects to have it completed and out by the end of June.

A. Sanders: I understood it was the end of June, but I didn't know it would be released then as well. For the information of those here, we got the '95 report in 1997. Just because it's finished doesn't mean you get to see it around here.

The specific recommendation was made that the ministry should introduce student achievement or student growth as one measure of teaching performance. What has been done to identify this and bring it into the accountability matrix?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, obviously, phase 2 of the OCG's work now deals with schools and teachers, and we're awaiting the outcome of that.

The member is right. What I actually said and what staff told me was that final reports are expected from the OCG by the end of June. We'll ascertain from him whether that means actual publication or whether he'll just have all the data in his hot little hands by that time.

A. Sanders: Here's a good one: ". . .specific recommendation to the ministry that we phase out targeting." Other than the agreement-in-committee, which brings in absolute targeting of funds, what have we done to phase out targeting in the larger picture?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have not done that. What we did do last year, as I think I indicated in estimates, was put together

[ Page 7642 ]

In the other two areas there was no consensus, frankly, and in some cases there was a real concern about what removing accountability through targeting would mean. So it was my decision to continue to seek more effective measures of accountability in those areas that might replace targeting, but that for the coming fiscal year we should keep targeting in place. I mean, targeting is one form of ensuring accountability. It's not the only form, and as the OCG report suggested, it may not even be the best form. But it is one that partnership groups are familiar with and to some extent comfortable with, so we agreed to keep them in place for the coming year.

A. Sanders: As the minister knows, the specific recommendation in the OCG report was the phasing out of targeting, capping and the use of trust funds in providing funding for the school system.

Finally on the list, what specific actions have been taken by the ministry to introduce a comprehensive district audit program?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Work on this is still very much in the pilot phase in some program areas and in some districts. We'll be looking at the OCG report in phase 2, as well, to see what this looks like from the school district point of view.

A. Sanders: I have some different sorts of questions for a bit. Could the minister tell us, from the accountability framework point of view, how he feels the ministry has handled the Khalsa school circumstance -- where we are? Where does he perceive we will be going from there to assure the public that the ministry has done a good job in sorting out problems at Khalsa school?

[4:30]

The report, a very comprehensive one, identified several issues related to the education and physical safety of children. The ministry took action to address those concerns and made it clear that release of additional funds to that private school would depend on compliance. Compliance was achieved. We did delay that operational grant until we could verify that conditions were addressed.

Another comprehensive, on-site evaluation of the school will be conducted no later than the end of this month, the end of May, to ensure that full compliance with the act exists. Ministry officials will continue to visit the school regularly to monitor progress towards meeting any follow-up requirements and to ensure that any issues that need to be addressed before future funding is released are addressed.

A. Sanders: Will the minister be providing to the public a final report on the issue of Khalsa school when all that investigation is done?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The end-of-May report will be made public, hon. member.

A. Sanders: A number of parents have sent letters to me; they are very concerned about the McCreary Society survey of grades 7 to 12. Would the minister comment on that survey?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a survey that was introduced by a private society. Decisions about whether or not to use it in schools rest with districts.

A. Sanders: As a sort of standard-bearer, did the ministry send any information about the survey to school districts to help them in making that decision?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry communicated with boards, saying that this was a project funded by a private society and not by the ministry, explaining that there were potentially sensitive issues involved in it and that the use of the survey was a decision of the boards.

A. Sanders: I've received a number of letters from families in Vernon, which is my riding, who were concerned about several of the questions. Therefore I feel obliged to point that out to the minister, for those families.

One parent felt that it was a gross invasion of privacy. In Vernon, the school board did decide to administer the survey, because it had been administered before and there hadn't been any problems. But this year there was. One of the questions that was especially irksome to a number of the parents was: "How much do you think your father cares about you?" Another one was: "During the past 12 months, did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide?" A number of the parents were concerned as to why the school system was asking these types of questions of students and where the information was going. I just want to bring to the minister's attention that there were parents who were concerned.

Another parent issue that I think is going to have an impact on education, probably very soon, is autism. There is a very significant lobby going on, on behalf of parents of autistic children, for funding for the Lovaas method of dealing with the social and educational costs of autism. I ask the minister: does he have a position on this particular topic?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A couple of things are going on that I'll inform the committee about. First, of course -- and you need to start here, I mean -- kids with autistic challenges are assisted in our schools through special education grants and programs. In addition, it's my understanding that the Ministry for Children and Families does provide grants to some agencies that are providing specialized services and resources both inside and outside schools. The Gateway House Society is one of them.

What staff inform me is that recently staff from this ministry and the Ministry for Children and Families jointly convened a meeting with advocates working on behalf of autistic children to talk about how best to make use of the funds that are available. As I was just saying to staff, if we had one unanimous recommendation, it would be easier to deal with. The reality is that there seems to be a range of opinion within that community itself, of adult educators and advo-

[ Page 7643 ]

A. Sanders: Are there discussions going on between the Minister of Health, the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister of Education concerning the issue of autism?

Hon. P. Ramsey: At the staff level, hon. Chair, yes.

Actually, this is an issue, I must tell the member, that is interesting to the Minister for Children and Families. She and I, of course, share both a common community that we live in, Prince George, and a common office -- very informal; this is not the way government usually works. We got engaged in a rather intense discussion, on one of our flights back and forth, about measures that we wanted to take to ensure that our two ministries were working well together on this and other issues.

A. Sanders: I want to just go a bit into the amalgamated school districts specifically. So I'll give the minister a moment to think about that issue.

Amalgamation of B.C.'s 75 school districts was done, and the number was changed to 59 and then to 60, with the addition of the francophone authority. This was originally done to save money. Last year it cost $17 million in addition for the amalgamation, and the other school districts in fact had to take a .78 percent cut in operating funding to accommodate the amalgamation of the other school districts.

Amalgamation is one of those things that school boards were not in favour of in the beginning, because they felt that there would not be savings extracted from amalgamation and that in fact services to children would decrease as a result of amalgamation. In districts that I have canvassed, there were services to children that were cut because of the amalgamation process.

Specifically, I'd like to focus on some of the amalgamated districts and first of all provide the minister with the opportunity to tell us how often he has met with the amalgamated districts to sort out the problems that they still have, inherent in the process of amalgamation itself.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe staff can safely say they've met with staff from all of them. Both in my travels around the province and in my work here in Victoria, I think I've probably met with the majority of amalgamated boards, but surely not all of them.

A. Sanders: When was the minister last briefed, or did he meet with the Yale-Lillooet-Merritt school board?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've not met with that school board.

A. Sanders: How about the Fernie-Cranbrook and Creston school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, I met with the Creston-Nelson board last week. I met with the Fernie-Cranbrook board in Cranbrook last October. I think those were the two boards the member was asking about.

A. Sanders: In the Fernie-Cranbrook school district, how many board offices are still in operation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two -- and it's the same answer for the other one, by the way.

A. Sanders: In the one school district where three boards were amalgamated, how many school buildings are still operational there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand they have three buildings that specialize in various aspects of administration.

A. Sanders: In the Nelson-Creston district, how many school board premises are still there?

[4:45]

A. Sanders: How about the Yale-Lillooet-Merritt school board?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff suggest that the answer is, regrettably, two.

A. Sanders: So if these amalgamated school boards are being decreased in their funding and are expected to run one school board, but they in fact all have two, that money would come directly out of student services in the operating budget to fund the premises. Is that not the case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe that is one area that these amalgamated boards need to look very hard at, to make the savings that are required.

A. Sanders: This is a very serious problem for some of these areas. Having lived in Nelson and driven the Nelson-Creston road, I can appreciate that it must be very difficult for these boards to get together. That is probably why they still have two board offices. Nevertheless, that means that in those districts, less money is available to kids in their classrooms because of the amalgamation, and services will be cut.

In each of the amalgamated school districts, each school district had a superintendent. What was the total cost of the severance payments to get rid of additional superintendents who were no longer needed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't have a rollup provincewide. As you know, we've continued grants for amalgamated districts at a portion of their previous central grant, for the first year after amalgamation, precisely to encourage districts, if they had severance that needed to be paid, to use that money to do so.

I must say, going back to the office issue. . . . Let's get clear here. What I've been doing on amalgamation is telling the boards that they may hope amalgamation is going away, but it's not -- and these districts will stay. They need to make the decisions -- and some of them are tough -- to figure out how they streamline their administration. The member has pointed to one decision that some districts have made to preserve two offices -- in some cases parallel structures, which is not efficient. That has been their decision, and I have been as firm as I can be with them in suggesting they look hard at that and do the necessary streamlining.

[ Page 7644 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I have not, though I've surely heard individually from some trustees that they find the distance large. I point out to these trustees that there are unamalgamated school districts that involve considerably more travelling than any of the current amalgamated districts.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware of whether school trustees who must travel have mileage allowances?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My impression is that most of them do, but that's a board policy.

A. Sanders: It would be interesting to know how much the amalgamation has cost the boards in terms of travel and expenses.

In the amalgamated districts, how many of those districts still have two superintendents?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is zero -- but I did have to check.

A. Sanders: In those districts, how many of those additional superintendents were moved laterally into another posting as opposed to being laid off?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Some superintendents retired, some took positions as assistant superintendents in other districts, and some were hired by other agencies. Remember, all districts do have an administrative cap under which senior personnel have to fit. There was a downsizing in the senior administration. There were obviously severance costs, in some cases, associated with that.

A. Sanders: I'm interested in understanding how the minister sees amalgamation saving money, when the districts are geographically unable to function without two board offices and are spending hours and hours on the road -- in some cases, separated geographically by mountain ranges or lakes. When he talked to these districts, did the minister put forward creative ideas on how these geographical problems can be overcome?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I simply don't accept that multiple administration offices are needed. I urge amalgamated boards to come to terms with the fact that amalgamation is a reality, to look at the necessary downsizing of administrative infrastructure, to look at video conferencing and other methods of avoiding the necessity for travel and to learn from boards that already have real geographical distribution of their functions.

A. Sanders: Those are some of the real problems in amalgamated boards, and they are severe and concerning.

While we're talking about school boards, some have suggested that in the agreement-in-committee, the government is in fact trying to do away with school boards. Is this the case, or would the minister care to comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I told the BCSTA that amalgamation is completed.

A. Sanders: Well, amalgamation may be complete, but the duties and responsibilities of school trustees have certainly been denigrated with the agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement.

There have been some changes in the funding to adult basic education at colleges and in school districts. Could the minister explain that for us?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the most significant change is that we've put a cap on the total number of adult education spaces in the school system. That system had grown very, very rapidly over the previous few years -- from around 6,300 spaces back in 1991-92 to over 12,700 in '96. So we did establish a cap on it, and we also asked school districts to work in conjunction with other providers of adult education to look at regional planning for provision of adult education services.

A. Sanders: If one of the three criteria in the accountability matrix that the minister is using is literacy, it seems counterintuitive that we would be putting a cap on adult basic education. Nothing could contribute more to literacy as one of the goals as sustaining adult basic education and making it work.

In the area of adult basic education, I believe there has also been a change in how the money is distributed to the school districts. Would the minister please explain that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Frankly, I find it incredible that the member would characterize an increase of over 100 percent in the number of spaces available -- just in this portion of the adult education system, leaving aside what happens in private training institutions and in public post-secondary institutions, which have also experienced a rapid growth in that area -- as ignoring the issue of literacy. We do, however, have significant difficulty in the adult education area, and that is looking at actual outcomes.

The data I have suggest that completion rates in school district-run adult basic education are less than 24 percent. For every 100 students you get in, 24 percent complete the courses they were enrolled in. So what I said to districts is: "Look, we've got to get a handle on this, and I'm going to hold back 10 percent of the money. We'll release it when completion rates are at or above certain levels."

A. Sanders: I think literacy is going to be a very, very critical area for our province, with the devolution of people working in the forest industry and returning to training in other areas. It may be of interest even for the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Education to look at that problem together.

With respect to adult basic education, school districts are attempting to run a program in which they are receiving 90 percent of the funding up front to do that, with the rest being received only on completion by those individuals. How is it possible to set up a program, staff it and run it if in fact the funding is not in place throughout the entire year, regardless of whether the adult students complete the program or not?

You're still offering the program. You're in a position where you can't get rid of the teachers who are teaching the program. They're there; they're hired. Their contracts do not have circumstances where that can be done. How is it that the minister expects the school districts to fund that without problems internally?

[5:00]

[ Page 7645 ]

In my community of Prince George, for example, if you are a school dropout and need to return to learning for literacy or high school completion reasons, you can go to the school district program, which has two or three centres. You can go to the college program, which has a centre, or you can go to the community skills centre. You can go to the Elizabeth Fry Society, which runs programs. You can go to the native friendship centre, which runs literacy programs, or you can get arrested and go to Prince George Regional Correctional Centre, which also has literacy programs.

All these programs are funded by one arm or another of provincial and federal governments. The concern for me, as the minister responsible for part of the adult education system in the province, is how we get increased coordination among those different service providers and commonalities of outcome. Right now I'm very concerned about school district performance, and I'm working with them to say that we have to do better. A 24 percent completion rate doesn't cut it.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

A. Sanders: What are the completion rates for adult basic education at the college?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Memory is failing. I was talking about this very issue with a staff person from the Advanced Education ministry not more than a couple of weeks ago, but I have forgotten that figure. It's considerably in excess of 24 percent, but I don't have it with me. Rather than guess, I'll get the information for the member.

A. Sanders: Does the minister remember if it was exceedingly higher or about the same -- what kind of ballpark figure?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was significantly higher. My recollection is that it's in the range of 60 percent, but I wish to confirm that before I have it on the public record.

One of the real issues here is accountability for a very valuable education program -- literacy and adult upgrading -- and how we make sure that we're getting results from the tax dollars we're spending. I think that does require me to ask school districts to be more accountable for what they're doing and to ask them to work with other providers of this service in their communities so we can make sure that we're getting the maximum value both in educational terms and in creating futures for people who need literacy skills in order to go on and succeed.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware whether any studies have been done that show that if users pay for adult basic education, there is a correlation with a higher graduation rate? Or is it just a matter of the two figures we have? Is there actually a statistic that can show the benefit of users being out of pocket for the education they're getting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I haven't seen anything like that. I did spend about three and a half years of my professional life at the College of New Caledonia, where I was responsible for the design and delivery of adult basic education programs. Completion rates seemed to have a lot more to do with course expectations and how the instructor and materials are relating to students. And there were some high correlations with what was going on in students' lives.

The issue of payment is a complex one, because many of the people who most need adult basic education are least able to pay. So the short answer is no, I don't have any access to a study that would suggest that.

A. Sanders: One of the importances of the ABE programs in the school districts is that people who take those do not have to pay. Again, if we are looking to educate adults who have missed the opportunity for whatever reason, that is a factor that will certainly come into play with very significant importance.

Every year I ask the minister about the Select Standing Committee on Education. This is a committee of all parties that meets to discuss current and urgent areas of education. This committee has not met in the last seven years -- not one single time has there been a meeting of the all-party Education committee. Is there any intention for the Select Standing Committee on Education to meet in this session?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Education Advisory Council meets regularly with ministry staff. That's been the primary focus of bringing together the partners in education. We're also working with them on how that gets expanded to include others that don't have direct responsibility for or involvement in the delivery of education. I'll leave it there.

A. Sanders: Again, the provincial advisory council on education is not comprised of elected people; these are people appointed by the minister. In fact, there are people actively excluded from that group -- people who might have different input from the party in power -- and it's made sure that they don't have input.

I'm talking specifically about the standing committee of this House. We have 75 MLAs, and a number of those are assigned to that committee on a non-partisan basis. This committee has never met, and I was interested to hear from the minister whether there is any movement in the direction of actually having that committee convene. There are many people on school boards and in the teaching profession who think that this happens on a regular basis, that we all get together to discuss where we think education should be going. Regardless of their political stripe, they are often very unhappy to find out that we as elected officials never get together to discuss the area of education. Again, is there any intention to change what has been the course of history in this House since the election of the NDP government?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I apologize to the member for misunderstanding her question. I was thinking about committees of both elected and school board people and others that come together to work with the ministry on matters of educational significance. As I think the members knows, select standing committees of the Legislature often meet -- usually at the call of the Chair -- when they have an assigned task that has been given to them by the Legislature. Those are decisions of the chamber. The use of standing committees has varied over the years and administrations. At this point I don't have any specific projects that I wish to assign to the standing committee.

A. Sanders: And you probably never will. Many parliaments around the world have standing committees, and these

[ Page 7646 ]

There's been some movement of a number of issues out of the Ministry of Education into other areas, specifically. . . . I'll canvass the minister to tell me what all those issues are. I'm interested in which issues that used to be in the ministry last year no longer are. For example, community schools is one that I'm thinking about. What's the roster? How many of the things that we naturally expect to be in Education are no longer there but are in fact in the Ministry for Children and Families or the Ministry of Health?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Frankly, staff and I can't identify any significant programs that were moved out of the ministry other than the splitting of functions in February, with the creation of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. The programs that the member is referencing -- community schools and the school meals program -- were moved to the Ministry for Children and Families over two years ago, I think, with the creation of the combined ministry after the election in '96.

A. Sanders: I am sure we canvassed community schools last year in the Ministry of Education estimates. Well, I'm surprised. I thought that community schools were under the Ministry of Education and that they had been moved last year. Is the funding solely from the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it is. Your recollection is the same as mine. We did discuss this issue last year, and I think we also agreed that questions about the magnitude of the budget and continuation should properly be addressed to the Minister for Children and Families. But I think we did discuss the role of community schools and their value.

A. Sanders: What influence does the minister have, for example, if the school meals program could not be funded through the Ministry for Children and Families? What is the connection there between the two ministries, recognizing that this is a social function that goes on in our schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families. Clearly that ministry would not undertake a curtailment of that program without working with my ministry.

A. Sanders: Can the minister give us the percentages this year of the number of children receiving home instruction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We estimate that 4,813 children have received home schooling in the current school year. Last year it was 4,925, and the year before it was 4,805.

A. Sanders: And the same type of question for distance education.

[5:15]

A. Sanders: Last year when we were here, there were some changes introduced in the former legislation, Bill 35, for the Francophone Education Authority. The minister's staff have provided me with information on the recent legislative changes, as well, that have occurred in the last month or so to try and circumvent some of the problems that resulted from the legislation and the ruling of Justice Vickers in the case between the government and the Francophone Education Authority. Could the minister, for the record, bring us up to date on whether he has communicated with the Francophone Education Authority and if they are pleased with the resultant legislation and are in fact no longer interested in pressing for another court case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the record, what we have done is amend the regulation under the School Amendment Act, which was debated and passed in the 1997 session. The regulation has been amended to allow the Francophone Education Authority to extend its jurisdiction over the entire province in two phases: one for next year and one for the year after. I will be meeting with the Francophone Education Authority in the next week or two and will know better at that time their reaction to this action by government.

A. Sanders: On behalf of independent schools, I'd like to ask the minister if there are any changes in the budget to the way that funding to independent schools is administered.

Hon. P. Ramsey: A very short answer: no.

A. Sanders: I'm sure there will be many people from independent schools who will be very pleased to hear that.

I think I'm going to give my colleague an opportunity to ask some questions. Therefore I'm going to sit down.

R. Masi: I would just like to return briefly to the topic of community schools, if I could. The understanding I got from your answer on that is that the funding is done completely through the Ministry for Children and Families. The question I have to ask is: is there such a thing left in British Columbia as a community school per se, in terms of the Ministry of Education and associated ministries? It seems to me that the concept has changed somewhat.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Seventy schools in the province are formally recognized and funded as community schools through the Ministry for Children and Families. The member is accurate that the funding budget for community schools rests with Children and Families and flows to school districts. I think there are also a significant number of schools in our province that are operating as community schools, seeking to reach out and involve other functions within those walls, even though they haven't been designated as community schools through that program.

R. Masi: If I could just pursue this further, then. What components of the community school does the Ministry for Children and Families actually fund?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry for Children and Families provides the money to school districts. The design of com-

[ Page 7647 ]

R. Masi: Maybe my question wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be.

I guess I can think about it now. What do we do here? What do I do -- anything?

The Chair: We'll recess until after we're finished in the main chamber.

The committee recessed from 5:22 p.m. to 5:31 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Masi: Just to wrap up on community schools, I have some concern there. I'd like to know the specific programs that the Ministry for Children and Families funds. They don't fund a concept, I don't believe; they fund specific programs. That's what I'd like to know: what part they play.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry for Children and Families provides grants to school districts for identified community schools. I think it's about $70,000 a school. It usually provides for the hiring of the community school coordinator. Then the community school coordinator, as the member knows, may actually reach out and involve other social service personnel or others in being on-site at schools.

R. Masi: I would just like to comment on one of the statements the minister made relative to education in general during one of the political speeches that went on during the estimates before this, relating to Youth Works. I'd like to point out to the minister that the minister at the time was not the Minister of Education -- I believe he was the Minister of Environment -- and that this side of the House fully supported Youth Works, without any question. As a rookie MLA at the time, I distinctly remember speaking on it in second reading and committee stage, etc. I'd just like to clarify for the record where in fact this side of the House stands on Youth Works, especially relative to skills and training.

To go on, I have a couple of questions here on the early retirement and career transition accord, which I believe is part of the agreement-in-committee with the BCTF. Has the ministry calculated the impact of this accord on the overall funding of the teacher pension plan? Is there any effect on the teacher pension plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I might ask the member to clarify what information he's after. Yes, costing on this package was done by the superannuation commissioner. It is designed to be a cost-neutral plan that will enable us to begin the process of renewing the teaching force in British Columbia.

R. Masi: Referring again to the accord on pension income, there are a number of former teachers, perhaps former administrators, that in fact will be benefiting from the teachers pension plan. How will this accord affect what they pay into it now? Because of this accord, will they be able to benefit from this or not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If I understand the question correctly, the member is asking whether somebody who'd already retired and was in receipt of a benefit could benefit from this early retirement plan. The answer is no. If the question is something other than that, I have misheard it.

R. Masi: What I'm saying is that at the present time there are administrators who are not part of the teachers union, who will eventually benefit from the pension fund. Will the fact that this fund now includes a retirement package have an effect on their payment? In other words, are these people paying for something they will never get?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been informed by staff that there is no change in the contribution level for administrative staff.

R. Masi: We did discuss some questions about amalgamation of school districts. It was, at the time, highly touted as a method of saving money for the system. This may have been covered in the estimates so far, but is there a sort of grand total in terms of savings to the system because of amalgamation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff are gathering some specific information. The member is right that this was an initiative touted -- actually, by both sides of the chamber -- as a way of saving some money in areas that didn't have a direct impact on the quality of instruction. If I remember correctly, at the time, the Liberal Party position was to amalgamate down to 50 or less. Both sides of the House saw this as a way of getting some efficiency into the delivery of education. The minister of the day initially set a target of 37 and then said: "Well, no, we won't go that far; we'll only go to 59."

Yes, there have been savings associated with it, and yes, some of those were canvassed with the critic today and maybe yesterday -- I don't remember, but surely today. One way of quantifying the savings is that payments for administration services to the amalgamated districts are now $15 million lower than they were pre-amalgamation.

R. Masi: I take it that we had an unqualified answer previously today from the minister that there will be no further amalgamation, despite the fact that there are savings to the system involved in this.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What I've said to trustees on this issue is that I think it's time to solidify and stabilize the system that we have, not seek further amalgamations. I've also said to them: "If there are two of you that are really hot to trot and want a wedding, I'd be glad to officiate, but I'm not going to impose it."

R. Masi: This next question is a fairly sensitive issue in terms of a Richmond vice-principal, Mr. Michael Kliman, who was wrongly accused of sexual abuse. Over time -- I believe it was a period of five years -- he was totally cleared. These allegations were false. The situation now is that Mr. Kliman has incurred legal bills of about $500,000 to prove his innocence. I understand that there is a school protection plan, but I'm just not sure what protection this individual, Michael Kliman, now has and where we sit right now in terms of the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yeah, I followed the media reports of this case with a real sense of interest and with real distress for the individual involved. I have to say to this committee that there is no assistance available through the Ministry of Education. The man is an employee of a school district, and it is

[ Page 7648 ]

R. Masi: The information that I have -- and I'm not sure it's totally accurate, but I believe it's pretty close -- is that Mr. Kliman will have to sue to get any help in this matter. It's a matter of suing the board, and the board has a school protection plan. I believe that's the process he has to go through. I'm asking if the ministry can expedite the situation. Are there any means at all?

I have to point out that while they may not be the most popular people in the world, school administrators are in fact the right arm of the ministry. Parents consider these people very important and very much the voice of the school and in turn the voice of the ministry. It seems to me that they're in a very vulnerable position for situations like this to take place. Are there any thoughts on this or any ways and means that the ministry can be of assistance to one of their own people in such a delicate situation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I want to let the member know that I share the view of the parents and students that he was talking about. Principals are a very valuable part of our system. Frankly, in many schools I've visited, they seem to be the most popular people in the whole area. They're well respected by children, teachers and parents and, in some cases, are seen really as driving forces within the community that's served by a school. I wouldn't want to say that I share any sort of sense that principals shouldn't be valued and praised for the work they do; they should be.

[5:45]

One thing I can do is inform the board of the concern -- that perhaps I should say all members of the committee have expressed -- about the circumstances in which the individual finds himself, and urge attention to the issue.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada