[ Page 7649 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure today to have in the House today and in the precinct two people who are very special in my life. I would like to introduce to the House my nephew Curtis Toijonen and his father Paul Toijonen. They're down from Cumberland today to visit the House and see just exactly what we do in the House, especially on a Friday. Many times in the past in the schools we've talked about theatrics, but unfortunately, we have no question period today. Curtis will also be graduating this year, so I'm very pleased that before his graduation, he is able to meet us and talk with us. Would the House please join me in welcoming them both today.

F. Randall: In the gallery this morning we have a very, very good friend from Burnaby, Merrill Gordon, who was my campaign manager in the last election. So I have a real soft spot for him. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Sihota: I know introductions are often routine, but it certainly gives me enormous pleasure today to rise and introduce to members of the House two very distinguished gentlemen from India, with whom we have been involved in developing trade in that jurisdiction. First, it is a privilege for me to introduce Mr. Rakesh Bakshi. Mr. Bakshi is, as I said, from India. I believe he is the youngest person ever knighted in India. He is an astute businessman, and I'm deeply impressed not only by his ethic but by his commitment to the environment. In fact, he is involved in alternative energy projects as they relate to wind turbines and solar energy production in that jurisdiction. He is part of a larger trade delegation here visiting North America from India to take a look at non-conventional energy resources. Would all members please join me in giving Mr. Bakshi a warm welcome to British Columbia.

Secondly, joining Mr. Bakshi is Mr. Nangapol. Mr. Nangapol hails from southern India, an area that is now referred to as Chennai, known to most of us as Madras. Mr. Nangapol is involved in a number of business activities, but again, what has impressed me the most about him is his commitment to people. In that community, he oversees a major hospital which is remarkably modern. It has standards that certainly exceed even what one would expect here in Canada. As a reflection of his compassion, they offer, I believe, up to about 700 beds to people in India on a no-cost basis in order to provide health care services to them. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Mr. Nangapol.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE WAR ON INNOCENCE

By virtue of their age, size and dependency on adults, children are in a vulnerable position. This vulnerability leaves children relatively powerless in the face of pressure from more powerful persons. Adults are always responsible for the abuse. The use of power does not have to involve physical force. A child can be manipulated through affection, bribes or threats. Children are potential targets of sexual abuse from infancy to adolescence.

It has only been since the 1980s that child sexual abuse has begun to be discussed openly. The women's movement has been the main force behind breaking the silence surrounding child sexual abuse. Support from this movement gave adult survivors the opportunities to speak out. As people began to speak out, it became very evident that child sexual abuse was not as rare as society wished to believe it to be.

We live in a society where people do not have equal social, economic or political power. This is evident between males and females, adults and children, white people and people of colour, the able-bodied and the disabled. These imbalances go beyond individual relationships and are reinforced in many social structures.

Children are easily manipulated, because they don't understand adult sexuality. Our society often portrays sex as a commodity. Sex is seen as something which men take and women give. Women and children are viewed as sexual objects. This is evident, both subtly and overtly, in advertising, videos, movies, and adult and child pornography. We as a society have become so numb by seeing violence on TV, in the movies, in our sports and increasingly in our schools that we have become less sensitive to it. We have begun to tolerate and accept it as an appropriate way to deal with problems or get what we want. Because our senses have been so desensitized by the violence we see, it is not uncommon to excuse the violence or blame the victim. We find excuses such as: "It was the alcohol," or "He had a bad day." Or maybe we even ask: "What did she do to provoke the violence?"

Certain factors in our society contribute to child sexual abuse. These root causes include power imbalances between men and women, adults and children; sexual stereotyping of boys and girls; treating women and children as sex objects; a toleration of violence; a philosophy of "It's not my problem." These root causes of child sexual abuse are also linked to other forms of violence: the physical abuse of women and children, sexual assault, wife abuse and dating violence. Many children have left homes that are often abusive.

Once they are on the street, they turn to prostitution to support themselves. It is their survival strategy and is seen as only temporary. Girls and boys under the age of 18 and as young as nine years old are involved in prostitution. This is such a serious problem that it should top the list of child sexual abuse. Nearly all adult prostitutes enter prostitution in their youth. Pimps actively recruit young boys and girls from schools and shopping malls. These individuals are often skilled in attracting and keeping youth dependent and exploited. Pimps prey on their particular vulnerabilities, offering them love and meeting their basic survival needs. The longer children are involved in prostitution, the stronger their ties become and the more difficult it is to leave. The problem of youth involved in prostitution is very real and should be one that is defined as sexual abuse. That is, children involved

[ Page 7650 ]

We only have to look in our own back yard, and we will find that we have prostitution pipelines that are moving children around the country. There is a Pacific circuit that runs from Vancouver to the U.S. west coast and then west to Honolulu. During the summer months, pimps move their young victims from Toronto to Calgary, on to Vancouver and then south to the States. To keep the youth under control and one step ahead of the law, pimps often move from city to city. The unfamiliar surroundings can prevent the child from forming friendships or figuring out whom to trust. The child is also kept penniless.

Despite the widespread belief that the trade is a sordid bit of back-alley life confined to Asia or certain streets in New York and Los Angeles, it's actually a lucrative and growing business in North America. Few acknowledge the growing number of children bought, sold and recruited into prostitution daily in cities across North America. Today in the United States and Canada there are between 100,000 and 300,000 children under the age of 18 trapped in prostitution. The average age of entry is 14 years of age. Young people are in hot demand in North America's sex industry among pornographers, escort services, massage parlours and strip clubs. No matter the outlet, the demand in North America is for younger and younger boys and girls.

Canadians and Americans should quit wagging their fingers at Asia and instead take a hard look at the fast-growing business of renting children for sex in their own back yard. Vancouver, for instance, is a strikingly beautiful city. It has gained a reputation -- along with Honolulu, Los Angeles, Toronto, New York and Washington -- as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex.

All levels of government and non-government organizations, law enforcement and communities must work together to make the matter of child prostitution a priority and stop the abuse of our children.

[10:15]

In this province, we must take -- and we have taken -- concerted action to deal with some of the results of child sexual abuse. The particular result I want to talk about is children living their lives on the street, as the member alluded to. We have a number of children in this province who find themselves on the street, and many of these children do fall into prostitution, largely as a result of sexual abuse as younger children themselves. This province is committed to fighting sexual exploitation of children and of youth. It's criminal activity, and it's deplorable, and it won't be tolerated.

Recently the Minister for Children and Families announced nearly $3 million for new programs to support at-risk youth. These initiatives include additional outreach and support workers, safe housing and a rent subsidy program. These children who find themselves on the street are children who, for some reason or another, are not prepared to -- not able to -- go home and for whom government care is perhaps not suitable. But we must care for these children and provide support for them and certainly provide housing for them. These initiatives are part of the commitment that the province has made in announcing the provincial action plan on prostitution and sexual exploitation of youth.

I had the opportunity to attend, for a short time, a community forum in March called Out from the Shadows and the forum on the prevention of child sexual exploitation in particular. That forum marks the first time that community action teams on prostitution, youth and police across British Columbia met to discuss the prevention of child sexual exploitation in this province.

British Columbia has taken strong action against prostitution on a number of fronts, including the establishment of a provincial action plan and a provincial prostitution unit. The Attorney General has urged his colleagues across the country to take tough action against adults who sexually exploit children. Indeed, the Attorney General has called for a lifting of the age of consent from 14 to at least 16.

The provincial prostitution unit which was created in 1996 is recognized across Canada and the United States as a model for supporting the police and the community to address prostitution and the sexual exploitation of youth. The unit is comprised of senior experienced police officers, Crown counsel, a community coordinator and also a social worker from the Ministry for Children and Families. It has had success indeed in developing innovative enforcement techniques to arrest and charge men who buy sex from young people. Since November 1996, police in B.C. have charged 25 men with buying sex from children. In the eight years preceding that, B.C. had only eight charges under this legislation.

The unit is assisting communities across B.C. in identifying local prostitution issues and in developing strategies to solve these problems. To date we have community action teams in ten communities, and we are continuing to expand. In British Columbia our position is that youth ought not to be arrested but ought to be provided support, and that is the direction our strategies are taking. Our focus in British Columbia is to use the Criminal Code to deter and punish pimps and johns who sexually exploit children.

The Ministry for Children and Families recognizes and is addressing the serious social problem of youth sexual exploitation. Through the allocation of new resources for services to street youth and sexually exploited youth. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I have to draw your attention to the light that's now on. Your remarks must end.

E. Gillespie: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Sorry about that. Thank you.

I recognize, for closing remarks, the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

B. McKinnon: I appreciate the remarks from the hon. member across the way.

[ Page 7651 ]

With few exceptions, the adults involved in the sexual exploitation of children are men. Women who do participate generally do so on the business side. They either sell their daughters into the trade or act as agents and traffickers. The demand for young children amongst johns is growing -- guys who would never be considered pedophiles. They cruise along the kiddie strolls in their minivans with child safety seats still attached. Their appetite for kids has created this market. Grown men are having sex with our children, and no one is trying to stop them. Kids as young as 12 wouldn't be working the streets if men were not willing to pay hundreds of dollars to have sex with them.

Across this globe the common complaint from child advocates is that most public officials do not yet take the issue of child sexual exploitation seriously. You have to have the political will if you want to reduce or eradicate child prostitution. Too many people inhabit a moral cocoon. It constantly has to be pointed out to them what's actually being done to these children. These children could be your sons, daughters, sisters, brothers or cousins. They are being sexually exploited in public washrooms, parks, bathhouses and massage parlours in every city across the country.

Everyone must take responsibility for child prostitution. All children and youth have the right to be protected from exploitation. The exploitation of young people must become a global responsibility, a federal responsibility, a provincial responsibility and a municipal responsibility.

The government of Alberta set up a task force in June of 1996 to deal with child prostitution. They found that there was not a consistent tracking system available to provide an accurate number of children involved in prostitution. It is estimated that 12 percent of prostitutes are under the age of 18, and the majority of these prostitutes are girls who have previously been sexually abused. The most critical recommendation that this task force came up with is that child prostitution be considered sexual abuse and be treated as such.

One of the keys to prevention is education and awareness. We need pathways of support for the child and stiffer penalties for the abuser. Governments have to do more. We can no longer ignore the problem or shut our eyes to it. It won't go away. Alberta's Child Welfare Act was amended in June of 1997 so that picking up a male or female prostitute under the age of 18 would now be. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt you, but the red light is on. Your time is up.

B. McKinnon: Could I just say my last paragraph?

The Speaker: Your last sentence, maybe.

B. McKinnon: Their stories make your heart ache and bring tears to your eyes. When you look into their eyes, you can see their pain, and you begin to suffer with them. They have lived without love for as long as they can remember.

The Speaker: For our second private member's statement, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

DIVERSIFICATION:
THE KEY TO ECONOMIC SUCCESS

I take the opportunity this morning to talk a little bit about the state of our economy here in British Columbia, particularly in light of ongoing commentary as to the status of our economy today. I want to do that, because I think a lot of the commentary around where we are in the economic cycle in British Columbia has been sort of self-serving, particularly from a politically rhetorical point of view.

I think it's important that one steps back and takes a look at where we are with our economy and our economic planning today, to be able to give the public in British Columbia some confidence that the government, in particular, has an economic plan that will see us through both good times and turbulent times.

I think it's important, first of all, to recognize that within any economy anywhere in the world, there are ups and downs. All economic variables function on some types of cycles. The trick and the challenge for any government in the design of economic policy is to ensure that you minimize those economic ups and downs so that the oscillations or the variations are not extreme from one year to another.

If you generate an economic model which is highly dependent on a singular resource or on the sale of commodities to a singular economy, then clearly you're more vulnerable than if you diversify. The trick for government in the design of its policy, of course, is to diversify its trading patterns so as to flatten out those cycles and maintain sustained growth within an economy. In that context, I think it's important to step back and take a look at what government has been doing in the design of its economic models.

First, let me step back and take a look at the situation the government found itself in in 1991 and at some of the changes that it has started to bring in since then. In 1991, shortly after this administration took office, we were well aware of the fact that the bulk of our trading practices were to the south of us, with the United States. In fact, about 80 percent of our trade at that time was with the United States, with the balance split equally between Europe and Asia.

As a very conscious instrument of economic policy change, what our government chose to do in the 1992 fiscal year was start to proceed with a very conscious strategy of diversifying our trading relationships, so much so that priority was placed on trying to strengthen our developing trade relationships with the Asian subcontinent. I think that one can legitimately say that the strategy that was taking place in 1992 in terms of diversifying our trading patterns -- in terms of putting more eggs in the other baskets than before -- is clearly now the case. Today about 50 percent of our trade is with the United States, 40 percent, roughly, is with Asia and 10 percent is with Europe. The benefit of doing that was that during some very turbulent times in the rest of Canada, particularly when eastern and central Canada were in the midst of very difficult recessions, British Columbia had a buoyant economy.

Indeed, it was the leading economy in Canada. It created more jobs in this province than any other economy in the country, and I think that was the benefit of government mak-

[ Page 7652 ]

May I say parenthetically that seldom do they give this government in particular the credit for having diversified our trading patterns. In fact, they're very quick to criticize the current situation we find ourselves in, without acknowledging that that decision to diversify was a very thoughtful decision on the part of our administration. Having said that, it is also true that we have currently seen a downturn in the Asian economy. There are no two ways about it. We all know that.

We've all read about the Asian flu, and clearly that has had an impact on British Columbia. There are challenges in the province in terms of how we deal with that economic downturn with a view to not having us fall into deep economic, cyclical oscillations, which is really what the strategy we established as a government was designed to avoid. There are two ways to do that. One is to continue to try to find new and emerging markets in Asia, and the second is to try to diversify the nature of our economy here in British Columbia to provide more opportunities for economic development.

I see that hon. members on the opposite side are upset, but that's to be expected. They find it very difficult to acknowledge that government has the kind of very thoughtful economic planning that so far has escaped their ability to detect. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Let me continue, hon. Speaker, and hopefully the hon. member will learn. . . .

[10:30]

M. Sihota: We'll get to those statistics later on, hon. member.

Let me also say this: there are two opportunities. One is to increase our training patterns and find other new emerging markets. Clearly government has been doing that. As introduced earlier on, we have some people involved in trade with India and British Columbia here with us today. I think that's reflective of the government's desire to continue to search new emerging markets for British Columbia products and to have two-way trade.

In fact, if you take a look at the situation in Asia -- interestingly enough, as someone said to me last night -- on one hand you've got the ups and downs of the tigers in Asia, then the steadiness of the elephant in India. It is true that the economies in countries like India, Taiwan and China have been relatively stable during the course of these oscillations in the Asian marketplace.

It therefore becomes ever so more incumbent upon government to try to find new markets for our products in British Columbia in those markets that have withstood the typhoon that has hit Asia. In that context, government has been moving to develop and expand trade with jurisdictions like Asia. In the next response that I give to the hon. member, I'll talk about our efforts to diversify the economy domestically.

C. Hansen: The member covered a lot of ground in that seven minutes, and I have only five minutes to respond to this. It's something that really could take an hour to flesh out.

When that member was first elected to this chamber in 1986, I was at the time serving as the vice-president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. I had helped set up that organization in Vancouver in the early 1980s, and I was very proud to serve as a vice-president for that organization up until 1986.

In those years, I gave a lot of speeches about Canada's relationship with the Asia-Pacific region. I very clearly remember using the stats that British Columbia's trade with Asia surpassed its trade with the United States. The member used the number that in 1991, 80 percent of our trade was going to the United States. In the early 1980s, our trade with Asia had already surpassed, in terms of our exports from British Columbia, our trade with the United States.

We in British Columbia were the anomaly, because in the rest of Canada they still saw Asia as some far-off, distant land in the Far East. We knew then that Asia was in fact the Near West for us and that it was a mere hop across the Pacific Ocean to our trading partners in Asia. So for that member to stand up and claim that this was some great initiative of the New Democratic Party in 1991-92 is simply not the case. I don't want to be too critical of the member, because I want to support where he's coming from on this.

Certainly we need to diversify our economy in British Columbia, and that means a whole range of things. It means attracting investment in terms of high-tech, and it means building on the strengths of our forest industry and mining industry in British Columbia. Those are not sunset industries. Those are industries that will continue to generate jobs for many decades to come in British Columbia. We have to build on our strengths in those industries. We have to change; we have to be adaptable; we have to use new technologies. We simply can't say that these are industries that are going to fade away, so we have to start looking at totally new ways of employing people in British Columbia.

At the same time, we have to capitalize on the opportunities -- high-tech, for example, and our tourist industry. To do that we need flexibility. If you want diversification, you need flexibility. If you start looking at things like our labour laws and our employment standards legislation in British Columbia, those are all things that are militating against us capitalizing on the real opportunities that this world economy is presenting to British Columbians.

I want to come back specifically to this area of trade diversification, because I think there are a lot of opportunities. The public and the media will often criticize politicians when they go on trade missions to foreign lands, but I'm not one who would ever criticize a member of this government for going on a trade mission if the trade mission is set up right. I think what's key -- and it's something the hon. member might want to respond to -- is the need for government to do its homework before it embarks on a trade mission. You can't just hop on an airplane, fly across the Pacific Ocean and think that somehow a government-led trade mission is going to be beneficial. We need to do our homework well ahead of time so that those trade missions can capitalize on contracts for B.C. companies, new opportunities and jobs for young British Columbians. That's what the bottom line is. When it comes to building that kind of a trade policy for British Columbia, we on this side of the House would certainly look forward to working with the government to make sure that we can diversify those trade opportunities. The bottom line is, basically, that we'll have more job opportunities in British Columbia for many years to come. I look forward to the member's response.

The Speaker: I want to remind all sides of the House about standing order 25A regarding the nature of private

[ Page 7653 ]

I recognize -- in that light, then -- the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: I have far too much respect for the rules to do anything that might irritate the members opposite, hon. Speaker.

In acknowledging the opposition's comments, which I find interesting, let me say that I think it's very clear that if you keep away from rhetoric, you can actually agree on some very basic fundamentals. I think it's generally agreed in this chamber that the fundamentals are relatively sound here in British Columbia. The hon. member's correct that if we do our homework before we go -- and that's certainly my experience -- in terms of trade and developing relationships in the Asian markets or other markets, we can actually make tremendous progress. We just came back from a trade mission to India that focused on wood. I would not have thought that was a market that had a niche there, and I was astonished to see the degree to which it was there. But why did I feel that sense of astonishment? Because we had done our homework in advance.

I also want to amplify a couple of other points that I was making. It's not necessary to diversify just from an international trade point of view; it's also essential to diversify to build on those resource sectors that we have in British Columbia -- mining, forestry, agriculture and the like. That's why, again, we have to recognize that the fundamentals in British Columbia are very sound. For example, the hon. member mentioned tourism. We've seen tourism revenues now raised to about $8.6 billion, up from about $3.5 billion in 1991 -- remarkable progress. Over the last decade we have seen the film industry, for example -- which also diversifies our economy -- generate about $630 million worth of revenue in British Columbia. That's a 300 percent increase over the last decade, and it's increasing at a rate of 10 percent per annum. In recent reports we have seen the burgeoning high-tech sector. We are leaders in British Columbia in terms of high-technology developments. Particularly, the work we've done with Ballard has been noted around the world, in terms of the degree to which we've been able to do that.

Similarly, the economic policy instruments the government has put in place, like the Power for Jobs arrangement to provide cheap power to attract industries like the aluminum industry, are working to the benefit of British Columbians and will indeed serve to attract industry here. On top of that, the investment the government makes in terms of education is long-term economic planning. We're the only government in Canada -- for the last seven years in a row -- that has increased funding for education. The fundamental reason for doing that is to make sure that we equip our people with the skills necessary to be able to compete in an ever-competitive global marketplace. That commitment to education -- the freezing of tuition fees -- is part of the overall economic strategies as developed by government.

The labour legislation, which clearly will be a focal point of debate because it's often seen as ideological legislation, ought to be measured against reasonable barometers. For example, the new labour legislation the government brought in in 1992 has resulted in the fewest days lost to strikes here in British Columbia since the Second World War. That's a record in itself, and it shows the degree to which government is committed to developing fundamentals in economics -- be it labour legislation, education, environment policy or economic policy.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS

Next month about 35,000 grade 12 students will graduate. While graduation ceremonies and grad parties are fun times, most students have the sober realization that graduation from high school will represent a significant change for them. They will be leaving a familiar setting and venturing forth into a wider world. Some will be going into post-secondary education of some sort. Others will be going to, or at least looking for, employment. For them, it is a different world from that which I graduated from quite a number of years ago.

Most grads of the fifties, the sixties and the seventies were confident that there were opportunities for them. Many went directly into jobs, because jobs were there. Maybe it wasn't quite the type of job they wanted, and maybe they never made it to be president, but they were able to carve out a comfortable niche in life for themselves. They expected to be able to afford to get married, to buy a house and to raise a family.

For today's grads, it's a different world. Technology plays a much more important role in today's workforce. The number of unskilled jobs is shrinking. There is a greater necessity to have post-secondary training to obtain the skills needed to find employment with a reasonable wage and job satisfaction. Today's grads look forward to the social functions related to this rite of passage we call graduation. They are less optimistic about their future. They see older family members and neighbours who, in spite of a university or college or technical education, are still unemployed or, worse yet, maybe underemployed.

There are more post-secondary opportunities and a wider variety of opportunities today than ever before, but with our population increase and more young people needing further education, spaces are limited. Entrance requirements for some institutions have been raised. Frequently students, even after being admitted, are not able to get the required courses and therefore take a partial program or an unrelated course in order to fill the student load.

Also, the need for further education comes at a cost. It's not uncommon for university students today to run up student loans of $20,000 or $30,000. When I was a student, there were enough summer jobs that most were able to earn enough

[ Page 7654 ]

There are other differences that I see between the youth of my generation and those of today. Many are now coming from broken homes, from blended families and from mended families, from single-parent families and from families that have become dependent upon social assistance. There is less supervision and guidance and more peer pressure. There is, all too often, more contact with the TV than there is with their parents.

On a Saturday last February a youth forum sponsored by The Richmond Foundation and the Canadian Policy Research Network was held. It afforded the opportunity for youth in Richmond, mostly high school students, to voice their ideas and concerns about their community. The goal was simple: to find out what kind of society the youth of Richmond wanted for their future.

[10:45]

P. Calendino: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Richmond Centre for the concern he has for young people in this province and for his interest in their well-being in the future. He made a number of comments there that, although not of a real political nature, tend to throw darts at this side of the House.

Let me point out that this government has done more for young people than any other government in the past has. We have frozen tuition fees for university students and postgraduate students so that they can have easier access to universities and colleges, so that they can have the skills and the degrees to be able to enter the world of work with as little difficulty as possible. We have created almost 13,000 new spaces in colleges and universities in the last five years. I see that the member opposite nods for that, and he agrees with me. The province has encouraged the technology industry to grow and has given incentives for that. I think that young people today realize that without knowledge of the technology sector of our society, they would have difficulty obtaining jobs. I think that in high schools today the technology departments are the fastest-growing departments. I think that we are giving the young children the skills they need to enter the world of work.

This government has put more money into creating opportunities for youth than ever before in the past. This year alone we have put in the budget $36 million to provide access to jobs for about 17,000 young people. There are a number of great programs that are going on to allow young people to access the world of work. For example, the program called First Job in Science and Technology helps young people enter the field of work. The government is helping companies provide jobs for young people and is assisting them financially. There is also the program for young people called Job Start. This provides assistance to young people in finding their first job and also gives assistance to employers to give young people the opportunity to gain experience in the workforce. We have a program called youth business and entrepreneurship training program -- You BET, for short -- which gives the opportunity to learn firsthand about how to develop business plans and how to become entrepreneurs. In fact, I visited the program at BCIT's downtown campus last year. The young people that were going through that program were very excited, and the opportunities that were opening up for them were incredible. The success rate of that program was that more than 90 percent of the young people were opening up their own business and being successful at it.

On the other hand, there was mention of the tuition freeze. The member opposite said that even though tuition fees have been frozen in B.C., they are still a little bit too high. I don't think I disagree with that, because we can look at some other countries in the world -- in Europe, in particular -- where tuition fees are nonexistent; they're very minor. That allows every young person to be able to access a post-secondary education. But we also have to admit that the tuition fees in this province are the lowest in Canada. I was reading an article yesterday in the Vancouver Sun, of all papers, that tells us about what's going to happen in Ontario. The Harris government has decided to allow universities to charge tuition fees according to the marketplace. The student federation is letting us know that by going to the marketplace, students will be faced with tuition fees of up to $19,000, especially for post-graduate students. Anybody who would like to become a lawyer there will have to shell out about $9,000 or $10,000 a year. If they want to go into medicine, they will have to shell out about $15,000 a year. Let's compare that to B.C., where they only pay about $2,200 or $2,300 a year. That's a huge investment by this province for the future of young people in our province.

The member was talking about the youth forum that was held in Richmond. They were concerned about unemployment and the wish of young people to have full employment.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll see that the red light is now on. Thank you for your remarks.

P. Calendino: Thank you. I was only going to mention that youth unemployment is a situation that's worldwide; it's not singular to British Columbia.

D. Symons: I do appreciate the response from the member for Burnaby North. I might add, though, that in spite of

[ Page 7655 ]

Besides that, today's grads face a far more hostile world than I or my classmates did many years ago. Besides the problems I mentioned earlier, they also face the prospect of global warming and environmental degradation that our generation, really, is bequeathing to them. We have not been good stewards of our environment, and we are reluctant to change our ways. Therein lies the problem and possibly the solution. For it is we, not the youth, who must change. It is we, individually and collectively, who must set the example by our example -- not by words, but by our deeds.

Over the years, we as a society appear to have put self first. It is too often "me" rather than "we." There is less a feeling of community within the family, within the neighbourhood and within society at large. We favour the deinstitutionalization of mental patients, but we don't want a group home next to our house. These messages are not missed by our kids. While we in this House may pass legislation that looks after society's civil rights and material needs, we must also address society's emotional needs. We need to engender a feeling of community. Our young people need to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of being needed. They should not feel captive to some economic machine where they are sort of a cog that can be put aside if it is deemed that they are not needed. They need a feeling of self-worth.

The answer does not lie in teaching our children; rather, it lies in us to get our priorities straight as parents, as workers, as corporations and as legislators. It is by example, not by words, that changes will occur. Parents need to set aside quality time for their families with the TV set off. Workers and employers must take into account the needs of the community. What I'm referring to here is responsibility. Too often I hear people expounding about their rights but seldom about their responsibilities. If we get our responsibilities and our priorities right, our young people will be able to look forward to a bright future.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Following that private member's statement, it's quite apt that I have my family with me today. I'm very pleased to introduce my wife Alice and our daughter Wallis, up in the Speaker's gallery. With them today is our mother-in-law Mary Muir from Paisley, Scotland; her son Archie Muir, from Paisley, Scotland; and our brother-in-law Jim Muir, who lives in Maple Ridge. They've just been up at Long Beach, enjoying the western part of Vancouver Island, for a week. I understand my daughter has some great show-and-tell items for kindergarten, to take back to Maple Ridge. Today they are seeing the sights of Victoria after we celebrated Alice's birthday last night. Please welcome them.

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

Over 60,000 class 6 motorcyclists are actively riding in British Columbia, and there are over 100,000 enthusiasts in the sport. Some people call it a sport; some call it a hobby. If you happen to own a British motorcycle, it's a labour of love. Anybody who has ever had one knows how much labour it takes to keep something like that running. In British Columbia, starting in May, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia run an effective advertising campaign, making people aware that motorcyclists are out there on the road and that we will be enjoying our mode of transportation.

The motorcycle community is also very supportive of the community. The best-known events that take place, of course, are the toy runs that happen throughout British Columbia, and the most notable one is the Vancouver toy run, which takes place in late October in Vancouver. Last year, in the pouring-down rain and led by the Premier, 5,300 motorcyclists took part in that campaign. The year before, in 1996, there were 7,100 -- because the sun was out. Besides the many thousands of toys that are collected for needy children in the lower mainland, there are also three motorcycles that are auctioned off. Food items are collected by members of the motorcycle community throughout the lower mainland and donated, along with the money, to the Vancouver Christmas fund.

In fact, the motorcycle community raises over $2.5 million for charities in British Columbia, and I'd like to say that the second-largest toy run takes place in my own community of Port Alberni, where last year we had over 600 motorcycles show up. We also raise money for the MS Society of British Columbia. Every year -- and coming up very shortly in June -- there is a Ride for Sight, which takes place in every single province across Canada. It will be leaving, again, from the Legislature steps here in British Columbia. Over the last three years, over $1 million has been collected in one day from across Canada for that ride.

I'd also like to recognize today an organization that is new in British Columbia, a commercial venture called Coastline Motorcycle Tours, operated by Marty Fortier and David Graham. They started up just a year ago in Cumberland, have now expanded to Victoria and yesterday supplied four motorcycles for the class-6 licence-holder MLAs who did not have motorcycles here. I'd also like to recognize them for something very significantly that they did. They took a motorcycle and donated it to the Comox Valley Transition Society. That society auctioned off that motorcycle to raise much-needed funds for the society. We can see that the motorcycle community in British Columbia, although somewhat maligned in past years, has come a long way and has many, many different types of supporters.

[11:00]

We have made some headway in the application of safety. Graduated licensing is coming in for car drivers in British Columbia; however, that's not new to motorcyclists. For a number of years now, graduated licensing has existed in the

[ Page 7656 ]

Today it's possible to go out and buy a 160-horsepower, 500-pound motorcycle that will actually go from zero to 60 miles an hour and back to zero again in eight seconds; it's a phenomenal piece of machinery. In British Columbia we allow a new driver, a 16-year-old who has never driven a car before, to go out and purchase one of those vehicles and ride it on the road. In other countries they have graduated licensing in the form of cc size -- different licences needed, for instance, for a 250-, 500-, 750- or 1,000-cc machine. In some cases, horsepower-to-cc ratio is what they use.

The B.C. Safety Council offers an excellent course that some of us feel should be mandatory. We realize there's a difficulty in making something like that mandatory. However, rules could be changed to require proper riding attire. It is still possible in British Columbia to ride a motorcycle in a pair of running shoes and a pair of shorts, wearing only a helmet. Anybody wearing that attire, who has ever fallen off a simple bicycle, knows the risks and the danger you place yourself in.

Government needs to do more. British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists' Errol Hannigan now sits on ICBC's president's advisory committee, and there's a suggestion that the dollars from the premiums paid for insurance for motorcyclists -- and I remind people in British Columbia and in this chamber that it costs more to license a 1,000-cc motorcycle than it does to license a new Jaguar car in this province. . . . Some of those premiums from that motorcycle insurance. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The red light is on; your time is now up.

G. Janssen: . . .should be used for safety-course rebates.

K. Krueger: I thank the member opposite for his comments, and hopefully I'll be able to add to some of the things he was about to say.

I've been a motorcycle lover since I was a young boy. My brother and I spent many happy hours on dirt bikes with the front wheel in the air and the rear wheel chewing dirt, and that was the life for me. My favourite poster as a young man was one of a motorcyclist taken from below after he came off a jump with clods of earth falling. All you could see was motorcyclist, sky, dirt and the bike itself. It had a quote from Sigmund Freud, which said that mankind was born with three basic fears: speed, falling and loud noises. And that's very much the way I felt about them. It's that combination of youthful exuberance and sense of invulnerability and testosterone, I guess, that leads to problems on the roadway some of the time.

I certainly acknowledge what the hon. member said about most of the collisions involving motorcycles being the fault of other drivers rather than the motorcyclists themselves. There are actually very few real negatives to motorcycles. The biker image that the gangs have brought to the sport is a problem, but of course, there are thousands of law-abiding British Columbians who really enjoy these machines. They're a very practical, efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transportation, and they're a lot of fun.

I think it's important, certainly, that we focus on the safety issues that the member raised. Even though motorcycles place their operators in a position of maximum awareness of their surroundings -- both hands active on the controls, a 360-degree view of the world with no door posts or other things restricting their vision, wind in the face or even sometimes bugs in the teeth -- that certainly happened to me. . . . Motorcyclists are alert, and they're interacting with their environment in a way that very few people operating cars and trucks are likely to be. In spite of this, there are many collisions, of course, and horrendous injuries to motorcyclists. I've seen many of those in my long career handling claims with ICBC. The collision rate is unacceptably high.

Now, there's only a certain percentage of those collisions that relate to driver inexperience and youth factors. Certainly the graduated driver-licensing program is something that the Liberals do support. This is one area where I think that judicious regulation makes a whole lot of sense, because the member is quite right about the risks of driving motorcycles while inappropriately attired. Anybody who's experienced road rash alone would agree to that, let alone the many more catastrophic things that happen to motorcyclists. Measures such as full-time headlights have helped a great deal, but an overarching issue is the need to have the motoring public other than motorcyclists think about motorcycles during the summer riding season -- particularly when it's raining, but really any time of the day. There are still many things that could be done to improve the record that we have on our highways with regard to injuries to motorcyclists.

When I graduated from dirtbiking to being able to have a driver's licence myself, I was looking forward to having a street bike, and my mother began to leave articles lying around the house with titles like "Death Rides on Two Wheels." I found she was not at all supportive of me getting that mode of transportation. Unfortunately, I married at an early age and my wife took that responsibility over from her, and they've both done everything they can to sabotage my motorcycling career. But I did buy myself a 1972 BSA Thunderbolt and got knocked off it at 312 miles. . . . I know what the member means about British motorbikes, because it was already falling apart on me, and I had to routinely tighten everything up. It was totalled, and I've never been allowed to buy another one. That's one of the few grievances I have in life.

I think that it's essential that we continue to do everything we can as government to elevate drivers' awareness of motorcycles and the safety issues around them. There are a number of other things that I think we should at least talk about. I can't advocate these as party positions, because I haven't had debates with my colleagues about them, but I think that allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes and bus lanes, for example, is a worthwhile discussion to have. Designating parking places where cars don't fit but where it makes it convenient for people to use motorcycles makes a whole lot of sense, because they are such an environmentally friendly and practical way to get around. And perhaps consideration by ICBC of a flexible licensing system where people who have and want to operate motorcycles have a greater ease of exchanging their plates between bikes and cars. . . . That's actually something that ICBC could consider in other areas as well. I applaud the member for raising this issue every year and for his efforts to organize the ride for MLAs.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the fact the red light is now on.

K. Krueger: I look forward to the member's concluding comments.

[ Page 7657 ]

All of these efforts would be more appreciated, but, of course, many of them are in vain because we continue to see car drivers causing accidents and maiming and killing motorcyclists. May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. Car drivers have to be reminded continually that there are other legitimate users of the road -- namely, motorcyclists -- and that the phrase that a car driver usually uses after an accident, "But I just didn't see them," is just not acceptable. This week we saw two motorcycle accidents on the news. Both of them involved left-hand turns. One of them involved a police officer, and both were at intersections. The B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists will continue to press government and the Insurance Corporation for change, but cars and other drivers simply have to become more aware.

F. Gingell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: We have with us in the House this morning a large group of students from South Park Elementary School. I see them up there, with their teacher, Mr. Brown. I think it's fascinating that they came here while we were talking about motorbikes. If you drive up 16th Avenue past my house, your muffler must be working, we don't want any noisy motorbikes on 16th Avenue. I welcome you here this morning, and I hope to have an opportunity to speak with you outside. I hope all my friends and colleagues in the House will join me in making you most welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, Committee A will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, and Committee B will be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
(continued)

J. van Dongen: We want to proceed now to talk a little bit about what I think are opportunities in the fisheries and opportunities for the ministry, starting with the sport fishing sector and then moving on to shellfish and finfish aquaculture. Maybe we could start out by having the minister explain what has happened within the ministry and the prior ministry with respect to the sport fishing sector in this past year. We could examine that and then move forward from there to what the plans for the future are.

[11:15]

What I'd like to do is take this opportunity to talk a little bit about our freshwater program. We'll try that, and then I will reference the B.C. tidal and anadromous sport fishery document that's going out. The hon. member for Comox Valley had a large part in the forming of that strategy. Actually, it's not a strategy at this point; it's a document for further public discussion. It's going out in that form now. It's not a Ministry of Fisheries document.

First of all, on our freshwater sport side, there are about 100 species of freshwater fish in B.C., of which 23 are considered game fish; 35 are considered vulnerable, threatened or endangered; and 20 are found nowhere else in Canada. British Columbia has managed the freshwater sport fishery for about 60 years. It's a world-class management built on the continuation of wild stocks. There are about 400,000 licensed anglers in B.C. and 61,000 freshwater lakes and 270,000 streams that are fished annually. It is estimated that there may be 200,000 anglers under the age of 16.

I think we'll move to some other area. This fishery brings into British Columbia about half a billion dollars a year through various activities. I guess it's spent in British Columbia, both inside and from outside. As I mentioned, our freshwater hatchery program is really the envy of other jurisdictions in North America. There's nothing else quite like it around North America. We've been very cooperative with other jurisdictions and indeed other nations on the production of fish and how to do that, lending expertise and technology. For instance, the white sturgeon for the Kootenai tribe of Idaho. . . . We're entering into an agreement at our Kootenay hatchery that we will be helping them to preserve that high-risk stock through our freshwater program.

A few of the base figures: about nine million fish were stocked in more than a thousand B.C. freshwater lakes and streams in '97. That's more than five million rainbow trout, two million kokanee, one million steelhead and about a million each of char and cutthroat. I've visited a number of our hatcheries. Two, I guess, is the number. I don't want to make it seem like I've been in all of them, but I visited a couple of our hatcheries. I have a great deal of admiration for the folks that carry on this program for us.

What it means is a benefit to British Columbians as a natural resource, as an environmental indicator, as a sport and recreation opportunity for us -- and a sense of pride in that we have the capacity to retain our wild fishery on the freshwater sport side. One of the reasons we can do that is because of the attention we've paid to environmental initiatives, as well, in the province -- through other ministries, the Forest Practices Code, the Fish Protection Act and such. So that's the freshwater side of things, if that helps the member.

Again, it's my stated intention to focus a brighter light and louder drums and bugles on our freshwater side, because it is unique and it is very worthy of increased attention and focus -- and compliments, as a matter of fact. The folks that have handled this program under various ministries -- primarily environmentally attached ministries -- are top-notch and first-rate in the world.

The other one, as I referenced, is the strategy and action plan of the sport fishing group -- the tidal stuff that will be going out for further discussion. It's important to note that the discussion paper that's going out has 18 objectives and nearly 50 recommended actions that need to be undertaken not only by the province but also by sector organizations, local communities and the federal government.

[ Page 7658 ]

I have met with the sport fishing folks, with the steelhead and with the B.C. Wildlife folks. I have to remember what the initials of the other group are; it's a combination of wildlife and sport fishermen-anglers. I've met with them informally a couple of times and formally the other day to solicit an early opportunity for discussion on the focus of the Copes report and other initiatives of this province -- I haven't met with the sport fishery advisory board yet; it's another group -- and to gather information and advice from them on what they feel about our endeavour on behalf of fish through the Copes report and to get their input on the dire need for Canada to achieve a Pacific Salmon Treaty this year. Canada cannot abandon British Columbia again this year on this issue. It's far, far too serious for our commercial, sport, recreational and aboriginal fisheries. I've had those discussions, and I've been out there with them. I look forward to advice from the member opposite on this issue, and I hope that gets just a touch closer to an answer to the question he asked.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that I asked the minister quite an open-ended question. I found the answer useful.

If we look at the freshwater side for a minute, it seems to me that one of the largest constraints on expansion to the freshwater side, particularly for tourists and travellers, is the freshwater resort operators in that industry that are catering to tourists' interests. There's been major concern in terms of their lease rates on Crown land. I'm wondering if the ministry has been or will be involved in addressing that issue. It strikes me as a very major impediment to potential expansion in that area.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for this question. It's not something that the lodge community has brought to me for discussion purposes, nor have they brought it to me in an endeavour to build an ally in the circumstance. In fact, if the community does bring this forward to me for discussion, recognizing that the land tenure issue is under the Minister of Environment, I would be pleased to come forward and work with the Minister of Environment in order to find a resolution. If tenuring in this manner or the cost of leasing is a burden to the expansion of tourism, I believe we should have a look at that. We have a very, very strong commitment from our Minister of Environment to work with us on issues such as this, and within the economic bounds of where we stand as a province, I think we should bring this forward.

J. van Dongen: I'm a little bit surprised that the people involved have not made representation to the minister, because they certainly made representation on the structure of the ministry. I appreciate the minister's response. It is something that the ministry, in its advocacy role, will want to address with the Ministry of Environment. What has happened is that there has been a major escalation in appraised land values, and that has created major escalation in the lease rates that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is charging. That is making small, tourist-oriented businesses very uneconomic. There isn't the kind of margin in these businesses to justify these very high lease rates. As the assessed values go up -- sometimes on the basis of very isolated sales that the B.C. Assessment Authority is using -- not only do their lease rates go up, but their property tax burden also goes up. I look forward to pursuing that further, and I know the ministry will do that.

I want to ask the minister about kokanee stocks in Okanagan Lake. It's my understanding that those stocks are in some difficulty, and I'm wondering if the minister has any specific information on that.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're gathering information on the specific question about fish stocks in Okanagan Lake.

I want to correct the record, or any misconception. This minister will not be working as an advocate for the resort lodge industry, as was brought forward by the member. This minister is interested in this question, and the answer I gave was that I have not yet been contacted by this industry. If they do, I would be willing to bring forward and participate in a discussion around this issue. I believe that's a markedly different position than being an advocate. My primary focus in this ministry is to run the Ministry of Fisheries, not the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. van Dongen: I'm a little bit surprised by the minister's comment. Certainly it was my perception -- and I'm here to be corrected if that's the case -- that when the fisheries part of government operations was under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, that ministry was an advocate within government for fisheries interests, particularly commercial fisheries interests and aquaculture. I think part of the difficulty that the sport fishing sector -- both the freshwater and saltwater sides -- found prior to having one ministry, the Ministry of Fisheries, is that they really had no particular home within government. They had some involvement with the Ministry of Tourism, possibly some involvement with the Ministry of Ag and Fish and some involvement with the Ministry of Environment. While a lot of the land use issues and decisions remain with the Ministry of Environment, and some of the habitat and possibly the enforcement arm will stay with the Ministry of Environment, I guess it was my understanding that this ministry would be devoted to economic development and advocacy on behalf of anyone involved in the sport fishing sector.

For example, I'm talking about not only the interests of recreational anglers -- British Columbians who have an interest in just going out fishing on a casual basis -- or about resort and lodge operators on the freshwater and saltwater sides who have an interest in expanding their industry. . . . I think it's important for us to canvass this just a little bit more, to make sure that we've got this right in terms of the mandate of the ministry.

[11:30]

[ Page 7659 ]

As I said, I haven't yet been directly contacted about this. The member references the input that this sector had in the forming of the ministry. Well, yes, but they haven't contacted me after the forming of the ministry and after my appointment. I would be willing to meet and to discuss their issue, but on the surface and the face of it, there's a broader balance that's required for the Crown interest and other interests through these leases. My role is to fit within that structure and not pick one group and say that they should prevail and that their interests should prevail, and then the next week pick up another group. It doesn't quite work that way.

J. van Dongen: I hope we're not dealing in semantics here, and I don't think we are. Certainly there is a broad range of interests in any land use decision, but I think that it is important for the ministry to be working on behalf of fisheries interests and tourism interests in the sport fishing sector. The people within the Ministry of Environment and Lands who actually make the decisions certainly have a responsibility to bring the other views together.

But I hope that this ministry will advocate within government for these fishing interests and tourism interests. That's not inconsistent with the public interest. I think that all the members on both sides of the House have an interest in expanding our economy. With the attendant jobs that go with that, we have an interest in getting maximum utilization and maximum economic activity from B.C. resources. In this case, we'll use freshwater fish as an example. It is certainly being supported by our hatchery program, which is within the ministry. So I think it's totally appropriate that the ministry take an advocacy role, recognizing that there are other interests.

I would want to see some fairly aggressive work done by the ministry on behalf of people like this. I acknowledge that they haven't contacted the minister yet. They will, I'm sure. But I'd like to see some fairly aggressive action on their behalf and on behalf of people like that. To the degree that we can expand this part of the sector, British Columbia will benefit. I'm not sure that in a lot of these cases there are a lot of conflicts. It's simply a case of having an economic industry, having something that's competitive -- something that can support tourists and fishermen from other parts of British Columbia, in particular, coming out and spending their dollars and their time in British Columbia. So, just one more time, I'd ask the minister if he could comment a little bit further. I view the advocacy role as an important one.

Hon. D. Streifel: The risk in extending this debate is that, frankly, I disagree with the member opposite on the role of a ministry within a broad-based sector and on the need to balance the public interests versus the private interests, the public access interests versus the private business interests. My role is much broader that that. It's not as narrowly defined as the member would wish it. I think I've committed here on the record -- this is the third or fourth time now -- that when this industry contacts me, I am prepared to meet with them to listen to what their issues are and how they relate to the broader interests of government, and to bring forward some of their views. I will certainly participate in discussion.

I will say that the Minister of Environment is very keen on some of the issues that this individual brought up. The Ministers of Employment and Investment and Small Business and Tourism are also very keen on this issue. The member should be aware that I do not have control, as a ministry, over the issues he is directly referencing. So my role would be more as a conduit as opposed to an advocate. I will perform that role, as I already have vis-à-vis the Copes report, as a matter of fact. That role of a conduit there has moved to an advocacy role on behalf of British Columbians, if you would reference the Copes report, hon. member -- not one isolated sector, but the broad sector that's there. This ministry will move and produce and expand the freshwater side, so that will then permit the expansion of other sectors that are interested in the freshwater side. In my opening remarks the other day and today, I said that I'm very, very keen on the freshwater side of things, but I'm very well aware of where this ministry fits within that freshwater strategy. This ministry will perform within the broader sector of the three or four other ministries that are involved here as well. It's not something that I can do only on my own, nor would I. I think it would be foolish policy for one minister to try to run three or four others in driving a single issue as an advocacy point. I believe that this is a very important question for discussion, and I believe it must be discussed within the proper forum to give it its proper weight so the issues can be addressed.

J. van Dongen: Hopefully, we're closer than maybe we think we are. I'm going to leave it at that with respect to that issue.

But I'm going to raise another specific issue that the minister is quite familiar with, and maybe that can be another example in this debate about how active this ministry gets in advocating views and positions on behalf of fishermen with other ministries. The situation in the Chilliwack River valley is that we've had ongoing difficulties with clay slides, and a variety of opinions about the potential damage or the actual damage to fish habitat and to fish.

Again, it's not my intent to get into a prolonged debate about this. But all of the sport fishermen, the recreational fishermen, that I talk to have major concerns about that river and about events like the Slesse Park slide in January of 1997. There have been a number of initiatives made in the region. The Chilliwack River Action Committee has tried very hard to get some interest from the Ministry of Environment. There have now been some applications made for some funding to try and do some remediation work on that slide. I'm wondering how the minister views his role in a situation like that. Would he view his ministry's role as being involved in advocating on behalf of recreational fishermen? Would he be taking more of a hands-off sort of approach? The decisions there, really, are the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment -- both the lands and the habitat sections -- and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Could the minister, just to sum up, spell out how he would intend to operate on that issue?

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the strategy is a little clearer now on where the questions are going. It's probably going to focus on what the value of the ministry is if we can't stop Mother Nature and whatever. In fact, circumstances like the Slesse slide are natural occurrences. They happen around British Columbia every year. They've been happening since British Columbia was formed as a land mass. They've been happening for 12,000 years, since the Ice Age disappeared. It's virtually impossible to guarantee that this ministry or the Environment ministry or any ministry, provincial or federal, would be able to remediate for damage occurring or prevent all future damage based on soil types and rainfall and earthquakes and all these other things. Recognizing that the Chilli-

[ Page 7660 ]

A similar question exists in the same area on the Fraser River, where the main channel of the Fraser at one time was way on the Chilliwack side, pulling off big hunks of the bank. Now the channel has moved to the other side, and the pressure from the west side of the river -- or the north side, I guess, depending upon your geographic description -- is to riprap the bank, dike it and have the channel move to the other side.

But sometimes you just can't stop all the damage that occurs, as much as we'd like to. I think that in this case, we have to be aware and cognizant of where our role lies and how much intervention we can actually physically do and, in some ways, how much intervention we can afford to do on the retention of a wild river.

Taming the river or taming the wilderness is very difficult, and in most instances it's not wise. As I understand it, the Slesse slide, a clay bank, was a natural occurrence. It wasn't attributed to intervention by humans from any activity that occurred. Really, is it feasible to stop the occurrence? You could protect this little corner or the area that slid and then, in the next heavy rainfall season, lose it a kilometre up the road or half a kilometre back the other way. Where does it stop? If the member suggests that we should be performing a Los Angeles River scenario on all of our rivers, I think most folks would disagree.

J. van Dongen: I certainly want the minister to be aware that I recognize that it's a difficult situation. There are no easy, simple answers. But I am reflecting the views of hundreds or thousands of recreational fishermen, people from all over the lower mainland and farther away than that who enjoy fishing that river. I have to say that I cannot accept the argument that it's an occurrence that happens in nature, so we won't touch it. There are many examples of human intervention into nature that have proved successful, so I don't think that's a good enough answer.

Having said that, yes, we recognize some difficulty. But I hope that the minister and the ministry will work with the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to find better solutions than what we have right now in that situation. In particular, if we're concerned about conservation and maintenance of good fish habitat, then I suggest and I submit to the minister that his ministry should be questioning the Ministry of Environment, particularly the people who have the responsibility for habitats, to see what they have done to measure the impact of those slides on fisheries habitat.

There has been some remedial work done in previous years on other slides, mainly by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I think, but I suggest that the government, with responsibility overall, should at least be making decisions from a perspective of having full information, making conscious decisions -- knowing the impacts on habitat, knowing the potential costs, and making decisions on that basis.

I submit to the minister that that is not happening today but that the Ministry of Environment is turning a blind eye to the impact on habitat. I ask him, as the Minister of Fisheries, to question that and to seek a more informed, conscious decision on the situation.

[11:45]

The member mentioned that in fact there are some areas where we have intervened against the forces of nature, and areas where we should, and I submit that he's correct. For the member to characterize my position as, "We just stand back and let nature rip," is incorrect. I want to correct the record here, right now. There are areas where we can mitigate against damage and where we have, and there are lots of reasons why. A lot of areas have to do with housing and whoever lives there. In areas like this, I think it's worthwhile to consider the cost.

I'd ask the member: how much would they spend to control all the rivers in British Columbia? That could be problematic. Or is it only this particular river? And is this fish habitat worth more, as a matter of fact, than other fish habitats in the member's own constituency -- where I think a position just opposite to this one, quite frankly, was taken around drainage of agricultural land?

I would hope that the member would recognize that there aren't unlimited resources to guard against the impacts of rainfall and soil bases and soil types and other circumstances -- nor should we, I would submit, go all around the province. . . . If we want to restrict. . . . We cannot just talk about the Chilliwack River valley and this one little segment. It's not that isolated. It's broader than that; it happens in all sections and quadrants of the province. Most of the time it's unexplained.

But I will offer to the member that yes, we are in very close contact with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on this issue. My director of fisheries was in the area two weeks ago, observing and compiling advice for me. So we can take our appropriate role within the discussion of whether or not it's worth the millions that it might take -- the millions that it would take -- to maybe fix the problem on a temporary basis and whether or not the slides have been occurring over eons and whether or not they will continue to occur no matter what we do there. I think that's worthy of discussion and worthy of consideration, but where the worthiness breaks down is with any suggestion that we could guarantee a fix here no matter what's spent. I would ask the hon. member to cough up the amount. How much? How much would you spend? Where are you willing to go? Which river systems would you choose not to intervene. . . ? The question is extremely broad.

J. van Dongen: Well, I want to respond by assuring the minister that I recognize that there are not unlimited resources. I recognize that there are other situations to be fought besides the Chilliwack River. The Chilliwack River happens to be one that I know about, and I acknowledge that there are other situations that maybe require similar attention. I guess my point is that when I look at that as an example, I think the government is making decisions in the absence of full information. There has been an unwillingness by the Ministry of Environment to even do the minimal amount of work to look at the impact on habitat, and I don't see how you can make economic decisions without at least doing a full assessment of the impact on habitat.

I note his reference to the ditch-cleaning issue. I agree: it's a good example of the economic considerations that need to

[ Page 7661 ]

Again, I'm simply reflecting the views of a lot of recreational fishermen. If the answer is that it can't be done or won't be done, then I guess we'll have to pass that message on to those people, all of whom seem to have a view -- and they spend a lot of time there -- that there are things that can be done. I think, as I said, that in previous events there has been work done on those slides, and it has had some permanence in terms of a solution in each of those cases.

I wonder if the ministry has the information -- and I don't know if they have or not -- about what the trend has been in terms of the fishing licences that people have taken out in the last three years, say. Does anyone have that information?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer the member opposite. . . . If he has specific questions to the Minister of Environment about circumstances under her ministry, I'd refer the member over to them. I don't want to get myself caught in the circumstance of being either an explainer or a policy-setter for that ministry.

I've tried to answer fully and openly with my view of the attempt to control some half a million kilometres of streams in the province and to offer, as a sensible solution. . . . Because it's politically expedient for some members of the House to pick one river. . . . We still may not be able to control the slides, no matter what's done there. It's on a site-by-site, circumstance-by-circumstance basis.

I would also remind the member that his opening question had to do with stocks in Okanagan Lake, and I will get back to that if he gives me the nod and wants me to answer that question.

The freshwater licence issuance is about stable -- flat, relatively stable. Tidal water licences are in a slight decline -- a fairly steady but slight decline. There are declines in the kokanee population on Okanagan Lake. There are lots of reasons. This is where you get trapped, where one part of a statement gets out and the criticisms roll. In some respects, we're making the lake a bit too clean. With the change in the sewage treatment and what not, feed growth doesn't happen -- and this kind of stuff -- and it affects the feed source for the stock. Also, on small creeks and rivers, the nutrient flow is being blocked. They're some of the same issues that we've experienced on Kootenay Lake and the Arrow Lakes.

I will say that there is hope for the future, because some of the work we're doing on the fertilization of Kootenay Lake to restore the nutrient loss that resulted from the Libby Dam in Montana being built is having great results. When I was at the Kootenay hatchery, as a matter of fact, talking to the manager up there, Laird Siemens, he said to me that the kokanee on Kootenay Lake are back in record numbers again. The population has had a dramatic increase and a lively. . . . That's about correct?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. There's a lively fishery in very good shape happening there, and we're using. . . . As I understand it, we're working through the Okanagan Lake recovery plan process to see what can be done there. They're at the feasibility stage.

That's how we began on Kootenay Lake. We went through the assessment, through the plan and the planning of the strategy, and it worked. So now we're going to take the same opportunity on Okanagan Lake and, I believe, the Arrow Lakes, as well, and carry on to see if we can assist that fishery. It's been very successful in Kootenay Lake. We recognize that we have a problem on Okanagan Lake, and we're taking steps to address that.

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

I just have one final question on the freshwater fishery side: does the ministry expect any expansion in, say, the sale of freshwater licences in the coming year? Does the ministry have any objectives in terms of the possible expansion of that sector?

Hon. D. Streifel: I believe the simple response to whether we've done projections is no, we haven't. But we have taken some steps. The folks in the rest of our freshwater program are going to have to forgive me if I constantly reference the Kootenay hatchery, because I know other hatcheries perform the same valuable service. In fact, you know, when the trout release is happening in some areas, it's advertised: "Come on and catch a trout. They're hitting the lake on such-and-such a day. Bring your family. Bring your children. Let's go fishing and have a picnic." Through those kinds of initiatives, I think we can expand the participation in the freshwater fishery, because it's a good resource for us and it's healthy. It's healthy in all kinds of ways. It's a good, healthy wild stock.

As I understand, the projections for tourism that I've read in the paper -- and I've seen notes on tourism -- are in fact for an increase this year. I know the hon. member rides the ferry, as I do periodically. Anecdotally, look at the traffic. Last year and the year before there were hardly any delays; this year, very early on, the ferries already seem to be full. I'm getting a nod over there, so he shares that. You know, it's sometimes tough to get a seat.

Through that kind of an increase in participation in travel through the province, whether it be from inside or outside the province, I would expect a modest increase -- but it's not a planned or projected one. I think that some 80 percent of the angling licences are sold within the province. Let's all go fishing. Let's pick that. . . .

I guess where it leaves me is that our hatcheries and our hatcheries program work well. I think we have the opportunity to create more angling opportunities, and I believe that's a key role for this ministry to play. We are only a couple and a half months on the road, and I want to focus more strongly and vigorously on our freshwater program. Part of it will be when we put the strategic plans and all that together -- the vision for this ministry. We'll be participating in how we can do that. I think I'd like to work very closely with the Minister of Tourism, for instance, to find out what they would need from us -- what kind of fish production, what kind of hatchery production opportunity they would need, in order to really pump up the external tourism. I'll tell you, hon. member, I'm very excited about the freshwater side and the future that it shows. I think it's an underused resource in British Columbia, and I think we can expand it without exploiting it.

J. van Dongen: I certainly agree with the minister that there is great potential on the freshwater side, and I support any initiative to try and expand that. I think a lot of it is value-added, in effect, without compromising other interests. I'm not sure that we've worked on that as aggressively as we might have in the past.

If we turn to the saltwater sport fishery for a minute, I wonder if the minister could comment in terms of the sport

[ Page 7662 ]

[12:00]

J. van Dongen: Thanks for that answer. I just want to back up to the consultative process which took place that got us to this point. I did attend one of the open houses; I think there were 14, based on the minister's letter. But I did have a concern about what appeared to be fairly low attendance, when I looked at the number of individuals who attended and the 379 questionnaires completed. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the issue of participation in the consultative process.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to provide an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: There are students present from General Currie Elementary School in Richmond East, and their teacher Mr. Avery. On behalf of their MLA, Linda Reid, I would like to ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm just trying to get the purpose or point of the direction of the question. As I understand it, the member was concerned that there wasn't very broad participation in this. I don't know if I share that concern. This was a joint process of us and others, primarily driven by the sector. I would refer the member -- I think the document is over there now -- to the last page, page 22. It's a list of committee members who were involved. It's a very wide range in there, if that helps the member.

Now we have an opportunity, once this document is produced. . . . This isn't the final show; this is act 1. This goes out for further discussion. The member can assist in that discussion by providing feedback or organizing the groups that the member is in contact with to have input into this document. That's the stage we're at now. So there's nothing final here. It's a multistage process, so we can build interest. And the member can help build input, if that's what the need is.

J. van Dongen: Certainly there's a broad range of organizations and people who did participate. I guess I asked the question because it appeared that the process, certainly in the initial stages, did not seem to have strong government support. I wonder if the minister could state that this is an initiative which definitely has his support and that he wants to push it through to some concrete action and some concrete results within the sector.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

J. van Dongen: One other question along those lines: could the minister comment on his views as to the degree to which opportunities in this sector -- the sport fishing sector, particularly the saltwater side -- could provide opportunities for displaced commercial fishermen in the process that we're going through right now?

Hon. D. Streifel: Oy! The member's taking me on a very broad cruise. I think Gilligan did this once, and it took them about ten seasons to get back.

Yes, there are opportunities for displaced fishermen on the coast to participate in a sport fishing strategy, as in fact they do now. I've met several already who guide and tour and do other things with their boats when they're not fishing. But that question really requires such a broad examination of British Columbia's view of the fishery and who should benefit from the fishery and the harvesting of a common property resource. It would be safer for me just to say: yes, there are opportunities, and yes, we would like displaced fishermen to participate in those opportunities.

But that's not a replacement of one by the other. Certainly as a long-term strategy and vision, we're not bringing this forward in any way as an immediate response to federal fishing plans that say, in fact: "You can't commercially fish any longer -- go sport-fish. Go haul a couple of folks up from Seattle or Dallas, Texas; go catch a couple of fish, and all the world will be right."

I believe. . . . I'm just going to wait a second here, as I believe it is important that the member understand this and get it. I would predict that this particular member would agree that we need to develop for displaced fishermen a much broader strategy than even suggesting that their activity would exist in sport versus commercial. . .there's much more that factors into this equation. I'll repeat: there's a possibility for some opportunity here, but it's not the only opportunity. It's not a replacement opportunity for the commercial activity, nor is it -- in any way, shape or form -- a full address to the leaks that are coming out of Ottawa on a changed fishery, a reduced fishery and all these other things.

Simply put, yes, there's opportunity here. But it's part of a broader picture that probably would be really a wonderful debate to have in the House -- not necessarily directly on point under these estimates; the Chair would shut us down. But it's really worth having a public discussion here. And it's worth having a public discussion out there, hon. member, in the communities, on the boat decks and on the wharves, as I've been having for the last couple of months and as Dr. Copes has.

J. van Dongen: Well, I certainly agree with the minister that it's not the only opportunity; it's not the sole answer. But as I said in the earlier part of these estimates debates, too often government is tending to focus on some pretty airy-fairy solutions -- retraining programs that don't lead anywhere and that kind of thing. It's particularly important for our provincial government, which has some influence in some of these other areas of the broad sector, to try and make decisions that will help provide actual job openings as opposed to just possibilities.

[ Page 7663 ]

I want to turn now to the shellfish sector. Again, that's intentional, because I think that there's opportunity there -- and that's not a new opinion. I can reference the Coopers and Lybrand study on the shellfish sector that was done for Western Economic Diversification. If you look at the executive summary of that report. . . . That report talks about the prospect of expanding the shellfish aquaculture industry in this province from something like $10 million or $11 million a year now to a $100-million-a-year industry over ten years, partly through expansion of sites and partly through intensification of activity on those sites.

I want to reference, first of all, No. 7 in the executive summary, which states: "Government support is necessary to address impediments to industry development." Again, that is not a new problem. If we look at the industry in the last four or five years, certainly there's been no growth. There's been some intensification, but to the best of my knowledge, there's been no expansion of sites. I think it's an area where there's tremendous opportunity, and it's opportunity that can be influenced by this government and this ministry.

If I look at the report, it confirms something that's been observed by me personally and in talking to people in the industry. It applies also in the finfish aquaculture industry. The report talks about a new class of entrepreneurial, professional growers. I think that's significant, because we have people in this industry who are progressive and who are trained. Very often they're trained in biology and are people who have worked for government in the past. The other skill and professional career that we see are people who are business managers; people who have good human resource management skills. These are the kind of people -- with brain power, entrepreneurial skills and interests -- that we in British Columbia, through our government, need to be supporting, encouraging and helping, because they are the people that are going to create jobs. I think it's just absolutely critical that this ministry takes decisive and concrete action, again together with the Ministry of Environment -- I recognize that the decision-making authority on a lot of these issues lies with that ministry. But it's absolutely critical, in an era when we have high unemployment, high youth unemployment and dislocation within the fishing sector, that we take advantage of some tremendous opportunities for our product in the global market and some tremendous opportunities in terms of the physical capability that we have in British Columbia.

On page 8, the report talks about constraints on growth. I wonder if the minister could comment on what this ministry is going to do to improve access to new sites. That is the single, most serious constraint to growth. What is the ministry doing on that issue?

[12:15]

We had an opportunity with 45 workers in the streams learning about fish habitat, learning about what has to be done to protect it, what has to be done to repair the damage and the health of the stream -- the water and the fish themselves. We had a program on the ground that had jobs at the end of it for displaced fishermen who could go to work virtually on a land-based industry, hon. member -- working for our municipalities, the ones we live in across the river from each other -- to keep them out of the glue when it comes to fish habitat circumstances around development and how Bill 25 will impact them. Again, the federal government walked away from that opportunity to produce real skills with individuals who could achieve real employment.

While we ride out the downturn in the salmon fishery, we have to get over the idea that the fishery on the coast of British Columbia is completely dead. We have problems in some salmon stocks, for sure, and I believe we have allocation problems -- not only in the existing salmon stocks but in the ground fishery and other opportunities as well. We have to correct that. That gives part of an answer to the circumstance around what we can do with diversification on the coast.

Now, shellfish and finfish. I agree with the member opposite that the expansion for shellfish aquaculture is imminent, necessary and wanted on the coast of British Columbia. I believe the opportunity that we have is almost unprecedented -- a wanted and a clean marine-based business. It can move from a commercial enterprise that's fairly active and quite large. . . . We can move the shellfish aquaculture industry right through to an enhancement of the tourist industry. I think it would be a wonderful idea to paddle into one of these little places with a bed-and-breakfast and have for breakfast some oysters that are grown right there on the spot, pay $150 for the privilege and leave. That's the extended vision of what can happen.

We have to get there, I agree. That's why this ministry and the ministry before us -- Ag, Fish and Food -- and the Ministry of Environment recognize the huge potential that exists within the shellfish aquaculture industry. That's why I'm working with the Minister of Environment. We've discussed this, and we've got our staffs and the two ministers and the government absolutely dedicated to resolving the issues around the tenure of leases so we can expand this industry. It's our intention to work with the coastal communities. There's a huge economic possibility up and down the coast of British Columbia for all kinds of different shellfish.

I look forward to exploring this in further detail with the member at the next opportunity. But looking at the clock and noticing that the Chair from the other committee is waiting

[ Page 7664 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I wish all members of the chamber a happy and safe weekend and say that I look forward, as I'm sure we all do, to resuming our duties on Monday. With that, I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

R. Masi: At the risk of reopening the whole contract issue again, I do have here, though, some interesting letters. We have 69 letters from various parents from the district of Terrace. They're very concerned about the cancellation of their music program in that area. I wonder if the minister has received the same copies that I have. I would like to ask the minister if there will be any moves at all, any action, relative to saving the music program in Terrace.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I have received perhaps not those letters but surely similar ones from parents in Terrace concerned about their 1998 board decisions on their local budget. I met with school trustees from that district last week to discuss the issue of the band program and others.

[11:15]

I also offered the board the option of requesting an efficiency advisory team from the ministry to go in, work with their senior staff and present to the board and the community what the budgetary options in front of them are. I understand that the board has requested an efficiency advisory team, and one will be sent there in the next week to ten days.

R. Masi: I would suggest to the minister that this question of flexibility and board governance is now becoming endemic in our school system. Perhaps it's a philosophical question, but I think many board members ask: "Why are we here? What will our role be over the next number of years?" In fact, with the increased amount of targeting in the way of funding and the reduced portion of board flexibility, I think there is some concern from boards about how they can implement new programs that are specific to their districts.

In any event, I would like to go on. The B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association has done a number of surveys relative to time management and various administrative duties. What's come up now in the field of school building administration -- perhaps crisis is too strong a word -- is a concern about recruiting new principals and vice-principals. I would first like to put the question to the minister: is the ministry aware of this development in recruiting new administrative staff for the school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his question. First, just to go back to the boards' role. . . . Look, boards have a vital role to play in this province. If I may, I'll just perhaps talk about my local board. It's had to make some tough decisions on budgets. Some of those are not popular locally. It has done so, as we discussed yesterday, in spite of the fact that it received a $1.7 million increase in budgeting and has a slightly declining enrolment. It found itself faced with a service level it couldn't sustain and had to lay off some people and make some tough decisions. It needs to happen.

The board that you're talking about up in Terrace has an even greater problem. Essentially, their funding is flat, year over year, almost to the. . . . I think they're down $3,000 on a base of $50 million. But their student population is falling rapidly. They're projected to have 200 fewer students next year than this. They have some tough decisions to make. You can't sustain a level of service for 7,800 students if you're only going to have 7,600 show up at the door. So they have some really tough decisions to make there. We will assist them as much as we can in giving some external analysis of what their situation is and what options are before them. I don't pretend that they're all easy decisions anywhere.

As far as the role of principals and vice-principals, yes, I'm aware of the paper that the member refers to. Management is difficult these days in many areas of public service, whether it's education, health, Ministry for Children and Families or others. There are high public demands on the system and, particularly in schools, high expectations that schools can deal with a really wide range of issues, some of which go far beyond the mastery of academic competence. That does place a lot of stress on those who work in schools, both administrators and teachers. This issue was examined by a workshop that was run by BCPSEA last weekend, and my deputy actually participated in it. So the ministry is aware of the issue and is working with boards to identify real problems and see if we

[ Page 7665 ]

R. Masi: In reference to school boards, I think what we're getting here is a concern from board members in terms of their role as individual elected trustees. I know we can pursue this all day, but it certainly. . . . These people are not well paid; they're not high-paying jobs. They get a minimal salary for it. It is a question of worth. And I guess it's a question of philosophy: whether or not you centralize the system and operate from a centralized bureaucratic system with totally targeted funding or whether you look at locally operated school districts that have a pot of money with which they can address the needs of the district.

Now, I know there are complications here; there are contracts; there are all these things that have been developed over the years. Perhaps this is what the concern is. I'm not speaking in terms of systems here; I'm speaking in terms of individuals and whether or not they really want to be on boards, in a lot of cases. I mean, they may see it as a stepping stone to greater days -- as an MLA, perhaps, or something like that. But I'm not sure those are greater days.

I really think that it's something the ministry should be considering. We don't need to go on with this unless the minister wishes to. I have lots more. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, it is interesting how the estimates of the Ministry of Education do tend to fill up with former teachers and former trustees from both sides of the House. Obviously there's a high level of interest in education on all sides of the House. Indeed, concern about education got many who are now in the Legislature into a representative office in the first place. I think the member is quite right.

No, I don't want to wax philosophical about what the constraints on local governments are. I only submit this: there will always be roles for local decision-making, whether it's at a school level or a district level, to tie what happens in schools to the community.

That's staying away from all the legislative stuff. There will always be a role there. Of the funds that school districts get, around 20 percent is targeted and 80 percent is not. School districts have great latitude and a huge range of decisions that they get to make around how services are delivered, what the particular needs of their community are and where they wish to put the emphasis in programming. I think we need to recognize that, even in the midst of the current concern about who negotiates collective agreements and how.

R. Masi: To get back to the question of recruiting for school-based administrators, one of the difficulties that has come up in the past number of years is the underfunding of school district collective agreements, along with a response from the ministry and from various educational bodies -- I might name the BCTF as one -- to look on school-based administrators as a nice area to cut, a very easy area to hammer down.

This has led to a decrease in a number of areas in terms of administrative staff in schools. I might point out that Vancouver has reduced the elementary VP staff considerably, if not totally. I know that in large secondary schools where they may have two or three vice-principals to deal with a school of 1,600 or something to that extent, these have been reduced.

The concern is not to give people jobs as administrators, but you're dealing with significant problems, such as racial tensions. School administrators now face dangerous situations on a daily basis. We see gangs driving up in front of schools in two or three cars, and a person has to go out onto that school ground, usually armed with a cell phone. That's where we're getting to: armed with a cell phone -- not a gun yet.

Approaching a car with six or eight people in it, or maybe two cars. . . . We're at the point where you ask why people would want to do it for a minimal salary difference. The money isn't going to make the difference. There's personal safety here and personal stress, and I think that relates back to what the minister was talking about yesterday in terms of the safe schools programs. But there are two things going on here. There's the immediate concern and the long-term one. I'd just like to have a comment on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just let me say off the top that I would not expect either principals or teachers to have to serve the role of law enforcement officers. When faced with a situation which is potentially dangerous, such as the member describes, I would hope that law enforcement authorities would be the right ones to be involved. I know many schools in Vancouver do have liaison people working between them and law enforcement agencies.

I think we need to reflect, hon. member, on what this government or this province has been saying to those involved with the delivery of public services, and that is that we wish to have a focus on spending on front-line delivery and a reduction of what used to be characterized as mid-management. That has happened. It has happened in school districts as administrative caps have been placed and as boards have worked with the ministry to put the focus on getting resources into the classroom. It has surely happened in government itself. The Ministry of Education is considerably smaller now than it was three years ago, and many management positions no longer exist. So that does at times place increasing workload demands on the positions that remain. I surely recognize that that has happened both within the public service -- narrowly here in my ministry and others -- and in schools. I'm not discounting at all the effect of this.

But principals, vice-principals, administrative officers -- frankly, I like the old titles of principals and vice-principals better -- do make a really significant contribution within their schools and very often, as I said yesterday, are part of the glue that binds schools to communities more broadly. I think a great number of them -- at least the ones I've met and talked to in my travels around the province -- find it an exciting and rewarding position. Stressful? You bet. The ministry is working with trustees and others to identify some of the real concerns and means of alleviating that.

R. Masi: I have had a chance to look at the time-utilization comments from the B.C. principals and vice-principals. One of the areas that struck me was the factor of time; they talk about time. Generally, they work a ten-hour day with very few breaks in between. But it's largely to do with supervision. I'm talking about supervision, in the narrow sense, of students and possibly dealing with parents, dealing with problems, dealing with violence, dealing with this situation, perhaps with support staff -- all the interactions of a regular operation of any sort of management structure. However, the critical role for principals and vice-principals is (a) curriculum implementation and (b) supervision of teachers. That should be the essential role of a school-based administrator. And what they're putting forward here is the fact that because of reduced time and reduced administrative staff, these functions are not being carried out as they should be. I think that's probably the nub of their concern.

[ Page 7666 ]

[11:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, I think I said it in my previous comments. I'll say it again: this minister and this ministry recognize the leadership role in education that principals and vice-principals play at the school level. We also value greatly their input into issues that go well beyond their particular school. One of my ADMs is meeting with the principals and vice-principals today, as we speak. So there is a general recognition of that. I also understand that the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association is going to be in Victoria next week and will be hosting a reception. I believe we've all been invited, and I hope many of us show up.

R. Masi: I'll get off my soapbox for a minute and get back to questions. In terms of the evaluation of teachers, could I ask the minister if there's a specific requirement in terms of the time frame for regular reporting on teachers -- teacher evaluation reports?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Evaluation procedures are usually specified in collective agreements in school districts, supplemented by procedures that the school districts have in order to put those collective agreements into play.

R. Masi: Is the minister aware -- perhaps a little history here -- that a number of years ago, it was required to have a report done on a teacher once every three years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is yes, we are aware of that. The more complex answer is that that's obviously been modified by the ability of teachers and employers to negotiate matters of evaluation. Now we have a variety of evaluation procedures around the province.

R. Masi: Is the minister aware that in some districts there are no reports written on teachers unless it's a negative report?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be interested in seeing the member's information. Staff tell me that they're not aware of a district where that would be the case.

R. Masi: I'll provide the minister with that information.

My concern here, of course, is as an MLA and as a representative of parents in the district. Parents are under the impression that teachers are regularly evaluated, like in most jobs in this world. I would urge the minister to consider perhaps. . . . I'm not sure whether the ministry can supersede contracts or not, but it seems to me that we're in a bit of a bind here regarding employees. I'm not sure if the minister wants to comment on that or not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is difficult. I mean, there are probably 40,000 teachers around the province who work either full-time or on-call in our schools. They are all employees of school districts, and that's the employment relationship within which evaluation occurs. It is worked out district by district.

I would also point out, though, that there are other processes by which districts and schools work to assure parents that quality education is being delivered to their children and do so at a school and district level. One of those is, of course, accreditation, which looks not specifically at a teacher's performance in his or her role but at how well the school as a whole. . . . Staff -- both teaching and non-teaching -- resources, curriculum, liaison with the community and other factors all go into the mix that's necessary to provide good education for kids. Teacher evaluation -- I would agree with the member -- is an important part of ensuring the public of quality education, but there are other mechanisms that are equally important.

P. Nettleton: If I may, I will abbreviate my questions and inquiries of the minister, given that a number of my colleagues appear to be anxious to ask the minister questions which are tied to their school districts.

School district 57, a district with which the minister has some familiarity and which is in the hometown of the minister. . . . I'm going to deal specifically with the whole question of special education funding. By way of background, in 1989 the district began neighbourhood schooling for children with special needs. Students new to the district were enrolled in their own neighbourhood school, and the centralized collector-style programs were phased out as students left elementary schools for secondary schools or graduated from secondary schools. In 1994, acting on the recommendations of the support services task force, the last centralized elementary school programs were closed, and all students with special needs were allowed to attend their neighbourhood school. Even before the move to neighbourhood schooling, the district pursued a policy of including students with special needs in regular classrooms where it was manageable within the resources of the school and where it was in the best interests of all students in the school.

In recent years, as the minister is aware, this has been supported through a decentralized school-based approach to allocating resources, and students with the most significant needs bring with them an allocation of money to be spent by the school in the best possible way to support that student and other students in the classroom. In the face of successive years of budget cuts, districts across the province -- including school district 57, Prince George -- have come under fire for spending more money on special education than the ministry has provided in funding. From the point of view of the board of school trustees, a lot of time was spent looking at this issue during 1997 budget discussions.

In fact, in '96-97 the board took the position that. . . . They turned over to the schools $1,877,427 more than they actually received in funding from the ministry. It was their position, however, that this is not entirely an accurate measure of overspending on special education, as many things that are made possible by this money are happening in schools and are directly and indirectly benefiting children other than the very narrowly defined special needs students -- for instance, classroom teaching assistants, learning assistants and classroom instruction from specialists in all areas, such as self esteem, anger management, peer mediation and better home-school cooperation and collaboration.

In '97-98 reductions were made, certainly impacting special needs students. In fact, savings were found by the school

[ Page 7667 ]

Now that I've covered the material by way of background, I would like to get to the heart of the issue, if I may -- that is, dealing with it from the point of view of the board, their experience and their position. In talking with people who have been involved in the decision-making process. . . . It has been their impression that in fact the minister has not responded to the inquiries of those that have to make these tough decisions impacting special needs students, who are particularly vulnerable in times of cutbacks.

[11:45]

I would like to refer to that document. On page 22 of that document, the board draws the minister's attention to special education funding. They go on to say:

"If there is one area of education that has drawn public attention and put both the ministry and school districts on the defensive, that area is the whole area of special education. If there is one area which has created a focus for public concern over the lack of adequate funding for our schools, it is special education.

"There are 59 school districts in our province; 56 of them spend more money on special education than the ministry provides through the funding formula. Taken in total, school boards spend $55 million more than they receive providing special education services."

The question to the minister would be, first of all: why is this the case? They go on to suggest that there are likely two primary reasons. The first, to a lesser extent, is the ministry's persistent practice of capping funding for certain types of special needs students. With overwhelming numbers of students with behaviour disorders -- ADD, FAS, etc. -- the capping of the moderate handicap category of special education grants at 4 percent of total enrolment has a significant impact on district 57. Over the last five years the number of students in these controlled categories has grown substantially, and the effect of the funding cap has become more and more pronounced.

The second possible cause that they point to, to a much greater extent, is the failure of the funding formula to recognize the costs of educating special needs students in accordance with the ministry's own policies, parental wishes and public demands. Policy and regulation, like ministerial orders 60 and 150 and the special education policy manual, direct boards to include special needs students in regular classrooms. Parents demand neighbourhood schooling and the inclusion of their children in regular classrooms. The general public is becoming increasingly concerned about the inadequacy of funding for special education and the impact it has not only on special needs students but on regular students as well.

They go on to suggest that the districts which spend only what funding is provided may not, in fact, be delivering services in a manner consistent with ministry policy and guidelines. For this reason, they believe, as do I, that it is essential for the ministry to monitor closely districts' adherence to special education policy and regulations. The collective weight of public pressure, parental demands and collective agreements will force the ministry to amend the funding formula to reflect the cost of providing appropriate sports services. Ultimately, these costs must be recognized.

In conclusion, if I can point to the recommendations of this report, they suggest that the Ministry of Education should increase the funding formula to recognize the cost of mandated services to special needs students in the regular classroom of a neighbourhood school. Lastly, the ministry should monitor closely districts' adherence to special education policy and regulations.

My challenge to the minister is to clarify the ministry's position relative to special education funding, particularly with reference to school district 57. I would be delighted with clarification on this whole question.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his interest in the issue -- the interest both in district 57 and some of the challenges it's facing and in the whole area of special education.

First, I'd like to just put a few facts on the record. Far from being faced with declining funding, either for special education or in its block grant, school district 57 has received an increase every year except one in the last seven. Their budget allocation this year was $116.8 million. That compares to the budget allocation of $104.6 million back in 1991-92. Their budget has grown 11.7 percent over that period. The number of students they enrolled over that period has grown by 2.4 percent. They have received revenues significantly in excess of the number of new students they have received. Again this year their budget went up -- by $1.7 million. They actually are projected to have 100 fewer students next fall than they had last fall. So when the member asserts that there have been cuts in provincial funding for district 57, it hasn't happened. They have received significant increases in funding over this government's term in office. Similarly, in the area of special education, in 1991-92 their budget was $9.1 million in targeted funding for special education. This year, targeted funding has amounted to $12.78 million -- an increase over last year of around $300,000. I wanted to deal with that off the top, because it is important to recognize that while district 57, like others, has budget challenges that it needs to work through, support from the Ministry of Education has been significant.

Special education funding has actually grown even more rapidly than those figures would suggest. I'll just read the provincial numbers for the record. In 1991-92 there were 36,972 children who were identified for special education funding. That increased to 54,028 projected for 1998-99 -- for next year. It's huge increase -- a 46 percent increase -- and significantly higher than the rate of population growth in our school system as a whole. During the same period, funding

[ Page 7668 ]

That's quite consistent with the agreement-in-committee that we have reached to try to lower class size to give students an even better chance of succeeding by having more access to teacher time in their classrooms. The member is right that many school districts have chosen to spend more than the targeted amount for special education. That is their choice. Prince George, district 57, is among those districts that have chosen to spend far more than their allotted amount. And that is their choice. In the current year, as I understand it -- their projected '98-99 budget -- they again project to spend $2 million more on special education than they have received in targeted funds. That is their choice. They have a very good special education program. Some experts in the field have told me they consider it as a model, but it is very expensive. They have made that choice, and it does create pressures elsewhere in their budget.

P. Nettleton: Just for the record, then, the minister does not deny the assertions of the board in their presentation to the ministry's finance and facilities committee that, taken in total, school boards spend $55 million more than they receive in providing special education services; further, that district 57, despite cutting nearly $1 million for '97-98, in fact has a gap somewhere in the range of $2.8 million. Would the minister respond to that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Boards around the province do spend more. I think staff told me -- I'm not sure about the figure or what year it's for -- $55 million. Clearly it's probably in the area of 10 percent more than they receive. Some districts spend within the targeted amount and some spend more. In the case of Prince George, they've chosen to spend not 10 percent more but 20 to 25 percent more. That is their choice.

I would also say to the member, though, that we are unaware of any district that does what the presentation by district 57 alleged -- and that was that school districts were not delivering special education services consistent with regulations of the ministry.

P. Reitsma: Just a couple of questions to the minister -- and I may have missed the first one. . . . Was the efficiency schedule -- the extended days -- addressed by the critic?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that was the subject for debate, I think either yesterday or Wednesday. I'm sure Hansard will reflect it.

P. Reitsma: I'll go through Hansard on that. In my district, part of districts 68 and 69. . . . First of all, in 68 -- Hammond Bay school. I think they had some very legitimate concerns regarding seismic upgrading, and I understand that some funding has been made available. I wonder if the minister would give us an update on Hammond Bay school so I can advise the school board as well.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The renovation project for Hammond Bay Elementary did receive approval to go to tender, I think, last fiscal year. It went to tender. Regrettably, the project was budgeted at $1.4 million but the tenders came in significantly over that -- around $400,000 more. Currently the Ministry of Finance is working with the school board to see if we can, in some ways, cut back the scope of this so we can go ahead with the badly needed renovations.

P. Reitsma: Do I understand there were two projects, two amounts for under $1.5 million, which means that it doesn't have to go to Treasury Board? If indeed it is that much higher, is it going to compromise what they set out to do, in terms of safety?

[12:00]

P. Reitsma: Moving on to Dover Bay Secondary School. As the minister knows, it was built for about 1,200 students. There are just over 1,600 students now, and apparently there are 15 portable classrooms. I know that the parents in north Nanaimo call themselves PASS, Parents for an Additional Secondary School. Could the minister give us an update on the Dover Bay Secondary School -- if there's going to be an addition or if an additional secondary school is planned?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to advise the member that the Liberal critic and I discussed this particular project at some length -- I think yesterday -- so he can read all about it in Hansard. The short answer here is that around $200,000 is to be provided to the district to do site identification and acquisition for a new school. We hope to get that done in the current fiscal year and then get into planning and construction in subsequent years.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate it. I haven't seen yesterday's Hansard yet.

In terms of McGirr Elementary School -- I don't know if that was talked about yesterday -- do I understand that an addition is being planned or asked for because of the number of portables?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The list of capital projects has been so extensive in the last couple of years that I find the projects slipping in and out of memory. Yeah, construction of the McGirr Elementary expansion, from a capacity of 300 to 450, was approved this year. It's about a $1.6 million project, and I think it's at the planning stage this year. My staff advise me that it should go to construction, as well, this year.

Actually, I might just point out that Nanaimo-Ladysmith, district 68, had a significant number of projects approved this year. Just for the record, an increase. . . . A brand-new Ada Janes elementary school of 250 students, in for planning; Cedar junior secondary, a new 450-capacity secondary school, off into construction this year; Frank J. Ney elementary school, a new 200-seat school; and then, increased capacity projects

[ Page 7669 ]

P. Reitsma: I think that reflects, of course, the tremendous growth that has taken place over the last couple of years in our particular area. I understand that the Frank Ney school. . . . Frank Ney, of course, was a former MLA and long-time mayor of Nanaimo. I understand that it's at the tendering stage.

I like the minister's comment about projects being slippery in and out of his mind. For years, of course, the projects have been kind of slippery in and out of the capital lists and projects to be done as well. I'm certainly pleased that many of them are coming to fruition.

Moving to district 69 and to Kwalikum Secondary School, or KSS, I understand that the school has had the okay to start planning an expansion to the overcrowded facilities. According to the ministry's statement, the addition will create 450 new spaces for the school, with an extended day. In real terms it means 275 actual spaces, but with the extended day, one space can hold more than one student. What exactly an extended day entails remains to be seen. Can the minister shed some light on that?

On a personal note, KSS is the school that both of my children graduated from. In fact, I say with some parental pride, they were both top students at the school.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Kwalikum Secondary has received the money to begin its planning, the design phase for the secondary school, in the 1998-99 budget.

I must comment on the challenge of keeping track of as many school projects as we have underway in this province. The budget this year of $339 million is significantly higher than last year, and it will enable 75 or more new expansion and renovation projects around the province. That doesn't include many, many minor projects that will go ahead as well.

Frankly, this government has not listened to those who would say that investment in schools and borrowing the money to do so is a debt that the province shouldn't incur. It would have been quite easy to do so, and we have instead said that we are going to continue to spend significant amounts of money to replace, renovate and add schools to our public education system. This year's project is one of the largest in recent years and does include many schools in the member's riding as well as others across the province.

For the extended-day issue, we will continue to work with teachers and school districts and require that they seek ways of using our schools more effectively and efficiently. Frankly, I'm talking to an increasing number of teachers who see some educational advantages to extended-day models as well. We have some good opportunities here to use our schools more effectively and stretch what at times seem to be scarce resources further and get even more schools constructed.

P. Reitsma: Moving on to French Creek school in the Coombs area, certainly last year there was a tremendous effort by the parents. . . . In fact, I was there when about 400 parents came out to try to save the school. It's very unique and very characteristic of the Coombs area -- the market with goats and the emporium. . .a rather quaint area. The school, of course, has been a focal point for the parents and the grandparents for decades, as a matter of fact. Would the minister be good enough to give us an update on what has been done so far and on what funding has been committed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, the initiative of how to deal with French Creek Elementary has been a matter of considerable debate and concern in the district, among parent groups and others. The decision not to consolidate was one that I think the board found difficult. It may not have been in the long-term best interest, but they have chosen to do that. We are supporting that decision with $130,000 in renovation money for French Creek Elementary last year and around $500,000 this year.

P. Reitsma: Having lived in that area -- my kids went to school at French Creek Elementary -- I think it's an extremely proper and wise decision, because it's very important to the whole social fabric of the Coombs community. Aside from that, it would have been very difficult to start busing students to other schools. Some would have had to leave at something like 7 o'clock or 7:30 in the morning to go to various other schools.

At Errington Elementary School last year, we had some problems with overflowing sewage and so on. What is the status on Errington Elementary School?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect the Errington project to be going to construction in the next couple of months. It's around a $4 million project.

P. Reitsma: Did the minister say it's a $4 million project -- being a new school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

P. Reitsma: Thank you.

Ballenas Secondary School. I think there were some renovations and/or additions planned. What is the status on that particular school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's no allocation of funds in this year's capital budget for that particular project and request by the school district.

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

[12:15]

The committee rose at 12:15 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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