1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 16


[ Page 7671 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today on behalf of our Premier to welcome to the Legislature a high school class from Windermere Secondary in Vancouver. Their teacher, Mr. Albiston, is with them. Most of them are grade 11 students studying government and some history; maybe they'll get both today. On behalf of our Premier, I welcome all of these students to the Legislature.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is a friend of mine who is also a constituent, Marshall Smith. He is with the corrections branch and is over here for a couple of days. I ask the House to make him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Terry Davies, the president of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 38. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Krueger: In the gallery today are former neighbours of mine from Smithers. Audrey and Harry Kruisselbrink have, for over 20 years, been taking care of foster children in this province -- a really proud and long record. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: I also want to extend my welcome to Harry and Audrey Kruisselbrink. Harry and Audrey have been members of the Smithers community ever since I was a young boy. I've known them all my life and am very pleased to have them in the Legislature today to witness what goes on here. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF BUDGET ON B.C. ECONOMY

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the B.C. Central Credit Union has dramatically downgraded its economic forecast for economic growth in the province of British Columbia from 2.3 percent to 0.3 percent. They note that a recession in 1998 is not out of the question; in fact, they say: "Technically, this qualifies as a growth recession." Alarm bells are ringing across the country. Every commentator is saying that our economy is in serious, serious trouble. My question is to the Minister of Finance: will she go back to the drawing board and come back with a budget that will in fact kick-start our economy, instead of driving it into recession?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we put forward a budget that actually is right in line with the predictions made by the B.C. Central Credit Union. As the member may be aware, the revenue forecasts are very conservative and are for 4.3 percent growth in the area of revenue.

In many circumstances, there is some cautious but good news coming out about the economy here. It was missed, but just a week ago last Friday, Moody's bond-rating agency confirmed our credit rating. So it is now, with Alberta, still the highest credit rating in all of Canada. There are initiatives going forward to stimulate our economy. We are taking a very precise approach to the economy in the areas of high technology, forestry and mining.

I would ask. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .the hon. members opposite to stop the naysaying and actually get on with working with us to stimulate the economy. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .as is the rest of the business community.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, we are attempting to help the government to encourage this economy again and get jobs coming back into the province of British Columbia. The B.C. Central Credit Union -- this is not the official opposition; this is the B.C. Central Credit Union -- says that regional economies that depend on the natural resource sector will bear the brunt of the economic slowdown. Surely the minister understands that when young men between the ages of 15 and 24 are facing a 21 percent unemployment rate -- over 21 percent, hon. Speaker. . . . In fact, in the Kootenays we've watched as unemployment has gone up by 32 percent in the last year alone.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you come to your question, please.

G. Campbell: Yes, hon. Speaker, I am coming to a question.

The budget has done nothing to kick-start the economy.

The Speaker: Hon. member.

G. Campbell: My question, hon. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance is this: how can the minister look in the eyes of anybody who is unemployed or any of the unemployed families in British Columbia and say that her budget is helping the situation, when in fact it is making matters worse, day in and day out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that the opposition likes to amuse themselves by abusing young people, but this government doesn't do that.

The unemployment rate dropped by 0.6 percent, because 6,000 new jobs were created last month. In the previous month 13,000 jobs had been created. We are now, over the course of the last three months, having almost 30,000 jobs created. Is there an issue with unemployment amongst young people? Absolutely. But I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that when we announced a $36 million youth employment initiative, the opposition did nothing but badmouth it and naysay about it. The business community is working with our government. The high-technology sector is working with our government. The commodities sector is working with our government. The resource sector is working with our government.

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The only people. . .

[ Page 7672 ]

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .who are off-board and still saying negative things are the Liberal opposition. It really is time to stop.

The Speaker: For his second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this Minister of Finance is so incredible that she doesn't understand the damage that she has done. [Applause.] There's nothing like applause for a 21 percent unemployment rate for young people in the province British Columbia.

The Speaker: Will you come to your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The damage that has been done by this government, hon. Speaker. . . . I will ask a question, hon. Speaker. The economy is out of sync with the rest of Canada and North America. Certain sectors of our economy -- coast lumber, pulp, mining, housing -- are already in recession. That is why we have so many people out of work in this province. That is why young people are facing an unemployment rate of over 21 percent.

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Jobs are evaporating from this province, hon. Speaker. The human toll is mounting.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: will the minister please admit that her budget is making things worse, not better, and go back to the drawing board so that we can put young people back to work in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When our budget was released, the commentators gave credit to this government for being prudent in its forecast. In fact, one of the leading columnists in this province gave us full credit for being prudent in our forecast. That was Michael Campbell, hon. Speaker. [Applause.]

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand that there are times when you can applaud and times that you can't.

We have been given credit for our economic prudence in forecasting. But I will tell you that our government knows what it is to be able to manage through the times when the economy flattens. We have made commitments that we will manage the expenditure side of our budget if the economy goes below what our forecast is. I would say that would be a lot easier if the opposition wouldn't stand up each and every day, asking us to spend more and spend more and spend more. We are on the right track. . . .

Interjections.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Hon. minister, will you take your seat, please.

Hon. members, I want to draw to your attention the fact that interventions are not helpful, and they are disrespectful of the Chair.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I name the hon. member: the Opposition House Leader. I call you to order. We're not going to proceed until there's order in this House.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS WITH FORESTS MINISTRY

R. Thorpe: Last week the Premier did not answer questions about Anthony Giannotti and 31 other co-op students, whose jobs were cancelled two days prior to commencing work. On Friday the Premier's press secretary said that the government would live up to that broken promise and give them jobs. Can the Minister of Forests tell us, as of today, how many of the 32 co-op students have actually been given jobs and are working in the jobs that they were originally promised?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I need to recognize you. The Chair needs to recognize members before they speak, when they rise.

I recognize the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was anxious to answer, hon. Speaker.

It's interesting how that opposition can make a promise out of a conditional offer of employment and how they can pretend that the forestry co-op program, which is an ongoing program in the Ministry of Forests, is in fact perhaps part of the promise of 17,000 fully funded jobs in the Finance minister's budget. We have to look at the assumptions that. . . .

The answer to the question is that as of today some 13 of the 31 have been placed. By the end of the day we expect to have placed another ten. We will make our best efforts to ensure that those people are all employed.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I believe that it was a promise from that government to give these students the 31 jobs. B.C. now has the highest unemployment rate for youth west of Atlantic Canada. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what day Anthony Giannotti and the other 31 co-op students will actually be working and drawing a paycheque on the jobs that were promised by your government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said that we would be making efforts to place them. It is the intention to place them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am responding for the forestry co-op program. Yes, it was confirmed by the Premier's press secretary that efforts were being made before that member raised the issue in the House, before he grandstanded by bringing a student down here. We will use due process and fairness with those people to place them in jobs that are appropriate, and it will be done as quickly as we can do it.

A. Sanders: I have a letter from yet another university student about yet another student summer job program can-

[ Page 7673 ]

celled -- terminated by the Ministry of Forests. For four years Tyler Mori of Vernon put himself through university by working summers in recreation maintenance for the Ministry of Forests. Just before he was to start that job this year, he was told his job was gone. Can the Minister of Forests explain to Tyler, who is watching, why his ministry is eliminating jobs for students like him?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The recreation program in the Ministry of Forests is not a student employment program -- just to set the record straight. Yes, students do pick up jobs, but when the ministry is cutting by 3 percent, it has an obligation to existing employees to maintain the core programs of the ministry and to make sure that compliance and enforcement take place, that permits are put out and that we maintain the forest economy as a first priority. Sometimes when we trim budgets, there are, unfortunately, some layoffs of auxiliary people. If there are offers, I'd like to see the letter. But the last issue, where people said the job was promised. . . . They shake their heads, hon. Speaker, but the letter is absolutely clear: the letter of offer is conditional upon the budget being found.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: You know, the policies of this government kill student employment all over B.C. These jobs for students in the summer are dead; they are terminated; they are in the morgue with a toe-tag. And it's this government's fault.

The Speaker: Your question?

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister a question that Tyler Mori asked in his letter: "Why does this government have enough money to bail out Skeena Cellulose but not enough for this student for summer employment?"

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to point out that I think my colleagues have attempted to provide some detail around student job programs initiated by this government. It's clear, as my colleague the Minister of Finance said, that we have brought in a 50 percent increase to the money allocated for student summer employment that was not supported by the other side. But I would ask a very simple question, and I would have thought that the answer would have been very self-evident.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. D. Miller: Do the families in the northwest -- in Hazelton, Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert -- not have children? Is it not reasonable for those children to rely on their parents having jobs? They know full well in northwestern British Columbia that this Liberal Party is on record as saying that we should not try to fight hard to maintain those jobs, that we should not fight on behalf of those communities. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is on record as saying just last week that if the Liberals were in power, they would shut Skeena Cellulose down. . .

The Speaker: Could you wrap up, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .casting those families and those children into an economic abyss.

The Speaker: Minister, wrap up, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Quite frankly, I think it's hypocritical and contradictory to get these kinds of questions.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When we have order, I'll call on the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: My question is to the Minister of Forests. When FRBC put out a press release last week, they promised that they were creating 6,500 new jobs. I have a letter here from Ken Lawrence in Vernon, who says that he was hoping for a job with this ministry and that he was hoping for a government that would keep its word about helping students and maintaining jobs. My questions for the minister are: will he keep his word? Will he cancel his phony ad campaign? Will he get to work creating jobs for youth? And will he take that money from the ad campaign and put it instead into employing young people like Ken Lawrence in Vernon?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The 6,500 person-years of employment roughly equate to jobs, and we are clearly. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the opposition laughs because they don't know the difference between short-term contracts -- on-again, off-again -- and longer-term jobs. The point is that the Forest Renewal. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They also don't understand that forest renewal is not a youth employment program; forest renewal is about renewing the forests and the forestry. We will maintain the commitment made in the press release to create the 6,500 jobs through Forest Renewal.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Fisheries with a ministerial statement.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I rise today on a very serious issue: the future of British Columbia fisheries and the need to negotiate a Pacific Salmon Treaty. In the coming weeks, the fate of scores of B.C.'s beleaguered coho runs, particularly to the watershed of the Skeena River, may be

[ Page 7674 ]

settled forever. Salmon remain a symbol of our province's great natural resource and of our obligation to do everything in our power to conserve and protect these resources for future generations. But without a Pacific Salmon Treaty, one that conserves our fish by ensuring that an equitable share of the salmon we produce returns to our rivers to spawn, our coho will be doomed to extinction. Alaskan interceptions of B.C.-bound salmon, unless drastically curtailed, will not only eliminate any potential harvest by B.C. sport, commercial and native fishermen but will wipe out the runs completely.

The renewed negotiations for a Pacific Salmon Treaty, which begin tomorrow in Portland, are critical to the future of our resource. British Columbia is joining Canada at the negotiating table in the hope and the belief that constructive negotiations can lead to an equitable solution, provided both Canada and the United States share the common goal of conserving the salmon. Regrettably, there is no indication that the Alaskans in particular share that attitude. There is no evidence whatsoever that Alaska understands the gravity of the situation and the responsibility to take action.

Last year only 6,000 coho reached Skeena spawning beds. Only 1.5 percent of the traditional escapement returned to the stream. That's despite very, very tough conservation measures on the Skeena that cost our fleets the opportunity to harvest large runs of sockeye. The habitat is good in that region of the province. Our conservation measures were effective, but our efforts were useless, because the coho were killed in American interception fisheries along the Alaska panhandle. Some 85 percent of our coho runs -- as many as 800,000 B.C. coho -- died in those interception fisheries. Alaskan catches of our fish have climbed steadily during the last four years. What we conserve, Alaskans kill.

It is vital that our American counterparts, particularly in Alaska, understand that we are not prepared to accept interim or short-term compromises that would have the effect of prejudicing the future of our salmon. This Legislature has taken a unanimous position that Ottawa must take action, up to and including the cancellation of U.S. access to Canada's military testing range at Nanoose, if necessary to achieve a fair treaty. Our government remains convinced that Canada can and must exert whatever pressure is necessary to secure significant protection of our fish and our coastal communities in the event that the Portland talks prove futile.

Our goal is to conserve the salmon resource as a public resource of all Canadians. To achieve that, we must see significant progress in Portland not just on fishing plans to manage the crisis but on fundamental commitments to achieve equity in the harvest of Pacific salmon. Without equity, there can be no effective conservation. Any outcome that sees closure in Canada, and business as usual in Alaska, would be a betrayal of our commitment to the resource and an end to our coastal communities.

We will be working with Ottawa to achieve three goals: an agreement that requires Alaska to reduce its fisheries to pass enough coho through to guarantee conservation of the stocks and appropriate economic opportunities for Canadians; an agreement that lays the basis for real equity in the sharing of Pacific salmon stocks; and a B.C. salmon management plan that produces resources and lays the groundwork for a strong-growing resource that supports sport, native and commercial fisheries.

A negotiated resolution that meets these goals is the best solution, but B.C. will continue to urge Canada to adopt the stance unanimously approved in this House last year: if this week's talks fail, action by whatever means possible to protect our salmon stocks and secure a treaty that protects our future. That's what British Columbia demands. We'll settle for nothing less.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond today to the ministerial statement on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The two fundamental principles in the Pacific Salmon Treaty are conservation of the resource and equity in the utilization of that resource. The conservation principle requires the parties to regulate their fisheries so as to prevent overfishing and provide for optimum production. The equity principle obliges the parties to conduct their fisheries so as to ensure that each party receives the benefits of its own salmon production.

[2:30]

As both Canada and the U.S. re-engage in salmon treaty talks tomorrow in Oregon, it is especially critical this year that the talks are fruitful. Both conservation and equity are clearly at stake. This year we are faced head-on with the prospect of outright extension of certain coho stocks, as the minister has detailed. This is in addition to the fact that the U.S. -- and in particular Alaska -- has consistently refused to respect the equity principle and has systematically thwarted its implementation. It is very discouraging to view charts and graphs of U.S. interceptions of Canadian salmon versus Canadian interceptions of U.S. salmon. I support the minister's comments with respect to Alaska's conduct of its fisheries.

Canada and B.C. are at a critical point in time in the history of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. A lot of time and effort has gone into getting us to this point. A lot of political energy and capital has been invested, and I sincerely hope that we do not lose this opportunity. It is incumbent on both levels of government to set differences aside and work together for what is right and what is in the best interests of our B.C. salmon and B.C. fishing interests.

I am extremely disturbed about the ongoing friction on fishing issues between the federal and provincial governments, as confirmed by a newspaper report this morning. I believe that both sides share some responsibility in this situation. In case someone thinks I am picking on the provincial government, let me clarify that we as the official opposition in B.C. also experience difficulties in our relationship with the federal Minister of Fisheries and his staff.

I don't want to find fault, however. I want to urge both ministers and both governments to renew their commitment to working together for the good of the resource and for the good of the fishing-dependent communities. From our perspective, both ministers can be assured of our commitment to do whatever we can to support any sensible, cooperative action that might help to facilitate a new agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Let's get on with it and do the best possible job for B.C. and Canadian fishing interests.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if we cast our minds back to Friday, May 23, 1997, the script could be the same and the words almost the same. At that time we had a difficulty with the Alaskans for precisely the same reasons. Here we are in 1998 -- in May again -- and we're really no further ahead now than we were then.

Notwithstanding the efforts of this minister and this government -- and I support this government in its efforts to

[ Page 7675 ]

protect B.C. salmon. . . . In fairness to this government, I think it's one of the few times in the history of this province that we've had a provincial government that has consistently demonstrated a concern for the protection of the wild stocks of salmon in this province.

Because it is largely a federal issue. . . . Today as we go into these negotiations, the people we have to hear from are the federal Fisheries minister, Mr. Anderson, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien. Both those individuals have to indicate that they are prepared to meet and talk with their counterparts to make sure that the government of the United States of America, including the state governments of Washington and Oregon, is prepared to put the necessary pressure on the state government of Alaska to bring Alaska to the table with a view to actually solving this crisis.

We have all talked about the maverick attitude of the people from Alaska. I've had a chance to meet with some of their Senators and discuss this issue over the last number of months. It is clear that unless there is pressure brought to bear by the highest levels of the U.S. government on the Senators from the state of Alaska so that they recognize the severity, the gravity, of this situation, we will not have success. And this province will be faced once again with having to make some level of response that will be not unlike the threat on Nanoose Bay we saw back in 1997, which our own federal government put a court injunction on -- which Ottawa foiled in terms of any effort and any attempt.

In response to the ministerial statement, I would hope that all members in this House are unanimous in their demand that the Prime Minister of Canada and his Minister of Fisheries take whatever action is necessary to meet with whoever it is in the United States that can bring pressure to bear on the members who represent the state of Alaska, so they will come to these negotiations and negotiate a fair and honest settlement that will protect coho stocks, so that all coastal British Columbians and those in the Alaskan area, as well as those who fish from Washington and Oregon, may be able to enjoy the bounty that is ours.

Hon. Speaker, we must not let the Prime Minister of Canada off the hook. In 1997 he said that he would meet with President Bill Clinton if it was necessary; in 1998 it's necessary. Those two heads of state must bring Alaska to heel. Otherwise, we will say goodbye once and for all to the coho stocks that have graced our shores. This is a critical and serious issue, and I hope all members in this House will join with me in writing directly to the Prime Minister of Canada and asking him to take his responsibility seriously, on behalf of all British Columbians and, in particular, those whose livelihood is dependent on the west coast fishery.

J. Weisgerber: I too seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: All British Columbians, I'm sure, share a deep concern over the state of fisheries here on the west coast -- whether they be coho, steelhead or any of the other species that are threatened. But year in and year out we've seen this act played out again and again and again. At some point in time we've got to understand that it's not working, that we're not getting anywhere with this. To continue to demand that the same government that managed the east coast fishery into extinction come out here and save the west coast salmon fishery seems to me nonsensical.

It's time for us as British Columbians to stand up and demand the authority to manage our own fisheries. With all due respect to my friend from Powell River, to demand that Mr. Chrétien or the Minister of Fisheries go to Bill Clinton and somehow bring Alaska into line simply isn't going to work, nor is the tough talk about cancelling Nanoose or any of those other actions. What we need to do is develop a community of interest on the Pacific. We have issues in common with Alaska. We can deal with Alaska, I believe, and we can make deals with Alaska. Ottawa can't do it and won't do it.

It's time for us to demand provincial jurisdiction. It's time for us to take the matters into our own hands and start to deal with this issue before we, too, see our fishery in the same sorry state as the cod fishery on the east coast.

So with all respect to the minister, I think it's time for us to do two things: get after Ottawa. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says it's a constitutional issue, and indeed it is. But constitutions are changeable. Constitutions are negotiable. Quebec has found ways to negotiate exceptions to federal authority in areas of specific provincial interest. If the government were determined and if we were committed to this issue, we would have already found a resolution.

In the interim, I would like to close by recommending to the minister that he invite the official opposition critic and that the two of them get down to Portland by tomorrow and start to take direct action in some of these negotiations. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in leaving this matter with the federal government for another year of inaction. I would urge the government to take some solid and positive action and to do so immediately.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 13.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 13; W. Hartley in the chair.

On section 1.

I. Chong: I mentioned in second reading that the opposition does not oppose the bill; we in fact support the spirit and intent of this piece of legislation. But I did indicate to the minister at the time that I would have some questions. The questions that I have are quite technical in nature. I would like the answers for clarification, for my benefit. I have gone through all the acts. Because of its repetitiveness throughout the act, I won't be asking it in every single section, provided it is clarified in one of the particular sections.

In the first section, the question I have is: in regards to the amount that's stated here, the maximum pensionable earnings. . . . I just wonder whether the minister can advise whether that maximum pensionable earnings is related to some amount, such as the Canada Pension Plan maximum pensionable earnings? Is it in relation to some other figure through the collective agreements -- or what would that be?

[ Page 7676 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is the same as the CPP yearly maximum pensionable earnings.

I. Chong: I wanted to assume that on the weekend, but I wasn't sure, because of all the various acts that there were. The other question I have in section 1 is in regard to the criteria here: ". . .a contributor to the fund if the employee has completed 2 years of continuous employment. . . ." Is that to say that after the two years of continuous employment have been met. . . ? Is that based on the employee's anniversary date of two years of continuous employment, or would that be based on two calendar years?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the anniversary date of employment.

I. Chong: The last question I have on this section is that the employee, having met the criteria, no longer has to maintain that. . . . Am I correct to assume that they no longer have to maintain the 35 percent threshold in each of the subsequent years -- the third, fourth and fifth? Once they've met the criteria, if, in their third or fourth year of part-time employment, they drop below 35 percent, they could still contribute to the plan. Is that correct?

[2:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

I. Chong: This is a part that applies to a number of other sections as well -- the prescribed basis that is stated here. I see that previously the schedule of payments to be made was on a basis acceptable to the board; now it is changed to "a prescribed basis." Was there a difficulty in the past as to the determination of what was acceptable to the board? Is there now a prescribed basis? Is there a schedule that is available? Or will that have to be determined once the boards meet? Is that similar, then, for every board of the four different pension plans that this bill will impact on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The boards are saying that they would rather have an objective measure than a subjective measure. So they requested a prescribed basis for determining eligibility, and that's what the intent is here.

I. Chong: So each of the various boards -- the four boards that are referred to here -- will have a different prescribed basis. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They could. Yes.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

I. Chong: This section is in reference to the composition of the board. Again, it's related throughout various parts of the section. It appears that I may be going through each section; that's only because this is the first act that we're dealing with.

In this particular section, I see that the composition of the board. . . . It removes the commissioner -- which I have no problem with -- but it changes the appointment by the government. It increases it by an additional person for the government appointments, as opposed to one from the College-Institute Educators Association. Would there be a reason that would be required? Could that extra appointee not have been from the College-Institute Educators Association? Was there some feeling that the commissioner had, with his removal, that this be changed so that there would be another government appointee versus one from the employee representative groups?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The government still has ultimate responsibility for the pension plans. The government has to maintain that responsibility. Government does that through the appointment of the chair; but the size of the board remains the same.

I. Chong: That almost leads into the other question. I was wondering why the government wanted to designate the chair versus having the board designate the chair. But if, by allowing this particular pension board. . . . The composition is seven. Previously it was three from government, two from the College-Institute Educators, one representative from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, and one was the commissioner. Would it not have been possible to leave the government-appointee numbers the way they were but then have the government appoint the chair, if that were the case? It seems less independent. Previously all these pension boards appeared to have a degree of independence. This is what I understood the minister to say when she gave her second reading comments. That's where I would like a little bit more clarification, if possible.

Hon. J. MacPhail: So your suggestion might have been that we write it up as three, two, one and a chair, rather than four, two and one. I don't understand. In my view, the effect is the same as what you're saying, but it's the legislative preference of the way you write it up.

I. Chong: No, I guess what I meant was: would it not have been possible to leave it as three, as opposed to going to four for government? It would be three for government, three for the College-Institute Educators Association and one for the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. Then, if the government so desired, appoint the chair from one of the three government appointees. Would that not have accomplished the independence and the control that government felt was necessary in order to have some influence with the board because it is public moneys?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is not a joint-trustee pension plan; it is a government-run pension plan. So ultimately the government has to have responsibility for it. That's how the board is struck.

The separation of the appointment --- that we should have specified three government members and then a separate one for chair. . . . The effect is the same. If the member is suggesting that we could have done it through moving toward a model of joint trusteeship, that isn't available right now.

I. Chong: No, that's not what I was intending. I guess the last comments by the minister probably have clarified it the most. In fact, what we had in place prior to this change was the three government appointees, with one commissioner being appointed the chair. The commissioner, in fact, was a

[ Page 7677 ]

government employee in that sense. Therefore you did not really change the control; you did not really change the board in that sense. If that's the reason why all these changes have been made, then I can understand it. The government has not changed that. But I didn't realize that the commissioner was deemed to be one of the government appointees, because it was separated in these subsections. If that is the case and you've not changed that structure, then there has been no real change to the boards. If that's correct, then I understand what the minister is doing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, your final comments are correct.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

I. Chong: On section 6(e), section 39(6), the comment that I noticed throughout the piece of legislation was that the chair of the board "be paid out of the fund remuneration at a rate set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." I recognize that prior to this, since the commissioner was the chair, there was no need to have this in place. Can the minister advise, with the chair of the board being paid remuneration out of the fund, what we would be looking at in terms of a rate set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Are there going to be some prescribed rates throughout the setting of the remuneration rate for the board chairs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be an executive council decision, and it will be within the current compensation guidelines that exist throughout government.

I. Chong: Just one supplemental question: are all the other board members who are appointed paid pursuant to the same regulations, or is it only the board chair who is paid remuneration on these four pension boards? I'm not clear on that; I couldn't find that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Other board members are not paid. There's no compensation for sitting on the boards.

I. Chong: Okay, fine.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

I. Chong: I am curious, more than anything, about the change here: the striking-out of January 1, 1996, and the substitution of July 1, 1994. I don't know the rationale for this change, whether it was housekeeping or whether in fact there were a number of employees who would be affected by this. If that is the case, I am wondering whether the minister can advise how many employees this would affect and how many have retired since July 1, 1994. As I say, the reasoning for this didn't appear apparent at the time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This was a drafting error. I'll just explain it to you, and then I'll seek the information for you. The agreed implementation date was July 1, 1994, and the legislation referenced that correct implementation date for plan members going to pension; but it incorrectly referenced the implementation date for plan members electing to take a deferred pension. So this is just correcting that. We don't have the numbers that the member has asked for right here, but we can undertake to get those for you.

I. Chong: I would appreciate getting those from the minister. Thank you.

Sections 8 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; The Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very slowly call second reading of Bill 15, the Legal Profession Act. For the members opposite, we are just awaiting the Attorney General. He's on his way.

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments in this particular bill will double the number of public members, called lay benchers, on the board of the Law Society of B.C. from three to six. This increase in public representation will help to monitor and direct the actions of the province's lawyers. This increase in lay benchers will also ensure that the decisions made by the Law Society better reflect public concerns and perspectives. The amendments in this bill will also simplify the Legal Profession Act and give the Law Society increased authority over minor administrative and internal matters affecting the province's lawyers, while ensuring that any issues impacting on public interest, such as complaint procedures, will still be governed by the Legislature.

Additional amendments will enable the society to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions on matters such as sharing information on complaints and disciplinary measures taken against lawyers, and ensure that lawyers who practise temporarily in British Columbia are covered by the act. The proposed legislative amendments also include a number of amendments designed to eliminate some inconsistencies that currently exist in the legislation and to facilitate uniformity and compliance with national standards and international agreements. For example, the amendments will give the Law Society more authority over some areas that improve the internal workings of the society itself and validate reciprocal agreements with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. They will ensure that legal practitioners from other jurisdictions who practise in British Columbia are subject to the oversight and regulation of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Those are my remarks, hon. Speaker.

[3:00]

G. Plant: I want to rise to make a few remarks about Bill 15, a bill which the opposition will be supporting. I want to begin by observing that the bill rewrites the Legal Profession Act, a bill that provides for the governance of the Law Society, of which I am a member -- as is the Attorney General, I

[ Page 7678 ]

believe. But so are many, many thousands of British Columbians. It's a fairly broad class of British Columbians, I think. Some would argue that there are too many British Columbians who are members of the Law Society. I've thought about that fact, and I don't think that it precludes me from making a few general remarks about a bill that I don't think is intended to be controversial -- and I don't think it raises much controversy, in fact.

I believe it was the Deputy Attorney General who approached the Law Society in 1993 and said that he wanted the legal profession to redraft its governing statute in a way which would give more rule-making power to the Law Society and thereby reduce the need for ongoing annual routine housekeeping amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society responded by preparing the statute that is now before us -- and I am told that the Law Society supports this bill. In fact, the bill -- in draft form -- has been gathering dust on the Attorney General's desk for a number of years while the profession has waited for it to be brought forward. We know that the bill has been ready for a long time, because in the run-up to the 1996 provincial election, the Attorney General promised the Law Society that he would bring the bill forward in the next sitting of the House immediately following the election. We are now in what I guess is the third session of the Legislature after the 1996 election, and the bill has at last been brought forward. There is an expression about justice delayed being justice denied, but I don't think that it applies here, although I am suspicious that the presence of the bill on the order paper in this session has more to do with the lack of any other significant business for the government, rather than with some recognition by government that the time for this legislation has now arrived at last.

I said that, upon my initial review, I think that this bill is important, but I don't think it's controversial. Let me say this: the transfer of rule-making authority from the Legislature to the benchers, who are the people who govern the Law Society, marks a change in the direction of more, rather than less, self-governance by the legal profession. This is being done largely in the name of administrative convenience. It is hard, apparently, to find room on the crowded legislative calendar for the modest kinds of changes that are required from time to time to ensure that the Law Society's rules are up to date, efficient and effective. So we in the House are being asked to give up some of our authority over the legal profession in favour of the benchers. Now, those who advocate that we should accept this change contend that legislative authority is being maintained within this act where it is in the public interest to do so -- that is, that the act strikes a new, improved balance, and that there are areas of rule-making authority that belong with the benchers and areas of rule-making authority which still belong with the Legislature.

I guess one could ask the question: what are the principles on which we should strike this balance or redraw it? How would we, if we were free to do so, divide up the areas of self-governance on the part of the legal profession between those which are appropriately within the control of the benchers and those which ought to be under the control of this House? Well, I don't think we're going to undertake this analysis here today. In fact, given the history of this bill, the idea that there really is any residual authority. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, to answer the interesting question, the idea that there is any residual authority in this House in respect of the legal profession is, I think, a bit ironic. I mean no disrespect to the people sitting here when I say that I doubt any of them had anything to do with any part of the drafting of this bill. No one in this House, I suspect, has ever had any participation in any debate over the limits of professional self-governance on the part of the legal profession. In circumstances where a bill which is 56 pages long and has 109 provisions, and which is introduced and read a first time on May 5 and then brought forward for second reading debate six days later, I think it would be a stretch to suggest that the government has any interest in input from the public into that important question. It's not a question of criticizing the Law Society -- they're not in charge of the legislative calendar -- but it is interesting that a bill that is potentially so important, having languished for so long, is being moved forward with what looks like lightning speed.

So what about that balance? Well, it's hard to figure out what the principles are that ought to govern the balance between self-governance by the profession, on the one hand, and legislative supervision by this chamber, on the other. But on the basis of the opportunity I've had to have a look at it, I don't think the balance is going to put off-kilter by this bill. Let me say in this context that I believe that the legal profession, over time, has been and continues to be, generally well governed by the benchers. I sincerely hope that they will assume the new responsibilities given them by this bill with the same amount of respect that they have traditionally shown for the public interest.

Another point, and it was one made by Attorney General in his very brief introductory remarks, has been made by those whose job it is to find something in this legislation which can fill a press release, and that is the increase in the number of lay benchers. As the hon. Speaker may know, a lay bencher is somebody who is not a lawyer but is nonetheless one of the people who is appointed to govern the legal profession.

What the bill does is double the number of lay benchers from three to six. Lay benchers in fact have many of the same powers which the legally trained benchers have in terms of issues like professional discipline and so on, and the increase from three to six is significant. It does certainly create the potential for greater public accountability in the way the affairs of the Law Society are managed.

Ironically, although the statute now permits three lay benchers, there aren't in fact three. The Law Society can't fill the existing roster of lay benchers, so it's a matter of some interest to me that we're here debating a bill that will double the number. I'm not sure what that's going to mean in terms of the actual number of people who will serve as lay benchers. I suppose the point is that it's not all that easy to find members of the public who are willing to assume the duties and responsibilities that go along with being a bencher. But it's a good thing to increase the number of lay benchers.

There are some important provisions in this bill which are not new. But the fact that they're before us in a statute, which is not really an amending act but is whole brand-new act, gives us at least an opportunity to think about the things that the Law Society and the benchers do that have considerable impact on the public. The Law Society can control -- and has the power to -- the unauthorized practice of law, and this statute defines what is and what is not the authorized practice of law.

People who are paralegals, immigration consultants, tax planners and people like that have an interest in knowing what it is to practise law or not practise law. The bill also tells us that it's permissible at law to make contingency agree-

[ Page 7679 ]

ments, and it provides for practice within British Columbia by people who have their legal qualifications outside British Columbia, so that we have foreign legal consultants and so on.

One thing that the bill does -- this is not new, but as I say, it's before us here on what will probably be an increasingly rare occasion -- is to explain the object and duty of the Law Society. We find that provision in section 3, which says that it's the object and duty of the Law Society, among other things, "to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by (i) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons, (ii) ensuring the independence, integrity and honour of its members, and (iii) establishing standards for education, professional responsibility and competence. . . ."

The thing that I think is interesting is the fact that the Law Society has a statutory object and duty to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms "of all persons," not just lawyers. It seems to me that the obligation to protect the public interest is significant. It strikes an important counterbalance with the obligation which the society obviously has to protect the interests of the profession. I think the existence of this balance and the tension created by it lie at the heart of the idea of self-government by the legal profession.

Lawyers have tremendous power in our society. They have the power to invoke the processes of the court against the will of people on the other sides of lawsuits. They have the power to issue writs of summons, to compel the attendance of witnesses and parties and documents upon pain of contempt of court. They also, obviously, have the skill, the ability and the training -- and therefore the power -- to draft documents which create legal relations between and among people.

For all of this power -- and it's considerable -- we choose here to make the legal profession self-governing. That is, we choose to allow lawyers to decide for themselves about the important issues of competence, credentials and discipline -- in short, to decide who is to be given the licence to practice law and who is not. In return for this responsibility, we require of the legal profession that it act not only in the best interests of its members but also in the interests of the public as a whole.

I think this responsibility is not limited to ensuring that the public interest is protected by ensuring that only those who are qualified are licensed to practise. I think this responsibility extends to taking an active role in the ongoing need to ensure that our system of justice is fair, impartial, accessible, affordable and efficient. I think we are entitled to look to the Law Society and to lawyers as individuals and to say this: "We have given you a position of privilege. You must exercise that privilege responsibly, and you must help us resolve the problems in our system of justice that threaten it."

Fortunately the profession as a whole, represented by the Law Society and the vast majority of its members, is also committed to these principles. If it were otherwise, I suspect that this bill would in fact be very controversial -- but it's not.

Speaking for the opposition, we will support this bill. Those are my remarks.

[3:15]

The Speaker: Seeing no further discussion on. . . .

I'm sorry; I beg your pardon. Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that sometimes it's hard to see this far down the benches.

In rising to speak on Bill 15, I'm going to try to make my remarks fairly concise. I'm not a lawyer. I'll make that statement right up front, having heard from the Attorney General and the official opposition critic -- both of whom are. I do want to talk, really, about three key points in this bill. I should say at the outset that I will be supporting this bill. However, I do have reservations, and I want to state where those reservations are.

First of all, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the official opposition critic, talked about this notion of balance. He did talk about the extent to which a profession such as the legal profession should have self-governance authority and the degree to which this House should have some kind of control. The member said that there hadn't been a great deal of debate around that issue, and I concur. There has not been a great deal of debate -- and certainly not within this chamber. I'm certain there would have been considerable debate among members of the legal profession as to the degree to which they should have some level of autonomy and where exactly those powers should fall.

I think this is an issue that, as a society, we want to pay some attention to, because I don't know that you would necessarily want to single out lawyers in this debate. If we look at the medical profession now and take a look at physicians and talk about the degree to which their own societies regulate them in a manner not unlike -- although the issues may be somewhat different -- what the Law Society may do with respect to the practice of lawyers, we do get into a very interesting debate that leads us to some discussion around when the public interest is breached. When does the public no longer have direct input? That's why it's good that we see the number of lay benchers increased in this bill. I think it's a positive step toward recognizing that there has to be some balance.

I did not know, until the member for Richmond-Steveston just mentioned it, that in fact we were unable to fill even the ones we have, which is an interesting comment. I'd be interested to hear from the Attorney General as to what the problem is there. I was not aware of that until those comments were made today. But I do think we have to be extremely careful that in the provision of this autonomy, with respect to self-regulation, we don't create a proposition that causes us to have societies that are struck -- whether it's the Law Society or any other -- that become so powerful unto themselves and by themselves that they negate, they take away from, the interests of the public at large and possibly take away from society's desire for us to move more specifically into other forms of legal services.

This brings me to my second point. What I see as notable in its absence from this bill is any discussion with respect to notaries public and the extent to which they have been lobbying hard to have their powers expanded so that they can provide some services which they believe they can provide as well as and perhaps more cheaply than lawyers. Do we actually need to have lawyers involved in the provision of some services when in fact the notaries might be able to deal more particularly with it?

What's interesting about that is that if we start to take a look at the extent to which the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. have actively put pressure on this government to recognize that there is -- from their perspective, obviously. . . . I guess one could argue that there's a self-interest here, but they believe that they can do that. Certainly I hear from constituents who are involved in simple conveyancing and all kinds of other work where notaries are now actively involved that they

[ Page 7680 ]

in fact could have and would have trust and faith in notaries to carry out those duties, those functions, that we currently need to pay lawyers to do and that might otherwise be done by notaries. I don't think that we have had enough debate around that question.

To be honest -- I'll put myself on the record -- I think the notaries have a case. I'm not sure if the Attorney General has heard the case -- or if he has, he hasn't heard enough of the case. If he hasn't heard enough of the case, maybe we need to find a venue to hear more. It seems to me that our society is starting to move us toward some level of change with respect to how these services are provided.

It's not unlike the medical profession, where we are now starting to see nurse practitioners, for example, and other kinds of practitioners who are saying: "Look, we can, through proper training and with skills and licensing, provide services that otherwise would be physician services and that can be better provided in a cheaper and more cost-effective way and in a way that perhaps does not involve" -- in that case -- "the medical profession." The notaries would argue, similarly, that it would not affect the legal profession.

Those are two of the three points I want to make. I think that we have not done enough for the notaries yet to simply have them shunted aside. I think we have to raise that matter, and that matter does need a venue for further debate and further consideration.

Lastly I'd like to talk more about what the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about. I could not agree with him more than when he talks about the power that's entrusted to people who practise law in the province of British Columbia -- and also the opportunities that are there for many, many good lawyers. I would suggest that the vast majority of people who practise law in British Columbia are upstanding British Columbians, but there are those who are not. It seems to me that particularly when we get into the matter of trusts -- when we get into the proposition that this bill talks about and some of the changes with respect to the administration of trusts and how those kinds of issues are affected by this bill -- we need to be very, very careful about how we proceed here.

There have been instances in my term as an MLA where we have found that lawyers have acted in what I would have thought was a less than ethical way -- their conduct might be questionable in terms of how they've managed considerable sums of money -- and that the people who have tried to find restitution for that have not been able to do so through the Law Society. They have not been able to do so through a self-policing agency with respect to the provision for how lawyers manage those trusts.

The third point -- I'll close with my comment on this -- is that I do think that we have to be extremely careful in recognizing that there must be a role somewhere for that balance to be applied when it comes to the provisions that lawyers have in the matter of private property trusts and so on. With that, I look forward to committee stage, and I hope, in my capacity as one member here, that I'll actually be in the House when we get to committee stage. I'll endeavour to do so. I would like to hear the Attorney General's comments with respect to notaries in particular, because I think that is an issue that we do need to hear more about.

The Speaker: I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Both the members that have spoken have made some very good points: firstly, the need for us to strike a proper balance between public accountability where the public interest is involved in terms of complaint procedures and the like and on the other side, trying to give more responsibility for internal management and administration of Law Society matters to the Law Society itself.

This legislation arose back in 1992 out of some discussions that the then Deputy Attorney General had with the Law Society for simplifying procedures so that we're not asked every year to spend time debating sometimes relatively unimportant amendments that are important only to the internal workings of the Law Society and don't impinge on the public trust aspects and complaints procedures, where the public is concerned. There's no question: I did promise that I would be bringing it to the session, and I couldn't, and here it is. It is not for want of other legislation that is pending or not pending. It is an important piece of legislation, and it is, in a sense, modernizing the Legal Profession Act. It will change terms such as "treasurer" -- which people don't understand -- to "president." One of the complaints I heard was from one of the previous treasurers of the Law Society, when I couldn't bring this forward. She said: "It was my dream to call myself president of the Law Society. Why aren't you doing something about this?" My apologies -- I wasn't able to do it earlier.

It is important that we deal, very briefly, with the issue of notaries. When I was not in cabinet, I was approached by the notaries' society representatives, as was the former member for Vancouver-Fraserview. We discussed these matters with them. I indicated to them that personally, as an individual lawyer, I wouldn't have any objections to them doing some of the work that they wanted to do. But it's a matter of collectively arriving at a decision between the Law Society and the notaries; there has to be some consensus. And there has to be consensus as to whether or not the notaries can as competently do the work that needs to be done. That's not to do with individual capabilities or talents; it's to do with the degree of training and the skill achieved during training at law school and subsequently, or through the notaries course and in practice as a notary public.

I asked the notaries to bring the matter to one of the caucus committees in the last term of this government, and they did. I was on that committee. I suggested to them that we forward their recommendations to the then Attorney General, and we did. The Attorney General considered the matters in a very comprehensive way and made the decision that, at that time, he did not wish to pursue any amendment or extension to the notaries' jurisdiction.

Subsequently, when I became Attorney General, I was approached. I met with the representatives. I looked at all of the discussion that had gone on, and I reaffirmed the decision of the former Attorney General. I haven't changed my mind; I'm open on the issue. I know that notaries ran what I in fact would call a vicious campaign on this very issue in the last year or so. You know, when you run a vicious campaign, it doesn't open anyone's mind; in fact, it closes it -- not that it hasn't happened to me. But I think it is important that when we carry on debate on these kinds of issues -- whether it's the opposition or anyone else or someone from outside this Legislature such as the notaries' group -- we have to sort of maintain some civility, and I think notaries failed to do that. That's not the reason why I think I won't change my mind. There are good reasons for not extending their jurisdiction. I'm always open to sitting with them again and speaking to them, and they can contact me. I'd be happy to arrange a meeting for them to come and see me, because some of them are my friends, and I know many of them.

[ Page 7681 ]

[3:30]

I won't say any more. I think it's important that lawyers recognize that they themselves are officers of the court, and a tremendous amount of public trust is placed at their disposal. They know that given the enhanced rule-making powers in this legislation, if they make a mistake, we will bring those powers back into the Legislature -- or any other government that might be here will do that. It is important that this important profession continues to carry on its work with dignity and with the complete confidence of the public.

With those remarks, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Legal Profession Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 16.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to speak to the purpose of this bill. In fact, it's about a subject that's very close to my heart: the Trans Canada Trail.

It is in order to facilitate this initiative that our government has brought forward this bill. As many members are no doubt aware, the vision of the Trans Canada Trail is to establish a 15,000-kilometre multiple-use corridor across Canada by July 1, 2000. The B.C. portion of the trail will be approximately 1,500 kilometres. The proposed route of the trail, from the Rockies through the Kootenays and the Okanagan down to the lower mainland and on to Vancouver Island, passes through some of the most beautiful scenery in Canada. It will showcase the entire diversity of environments that demand both our care and our stewardship -- from urban and suburban green space to ranchland, forests and wilderness. This is why our government has made a firm commitment to complete the B.C. portion of the Trans Canada Trail; in fact, we made it our first millennium project. More than any single project I can think of, the Trans Canada Trail is going to promote progress on an array of goals that are important to both British Columbia and Canada: better public awareness of the linkages between nature and heritage conservation, better protection of unique local environments, a boost for local economies through increased tourism and wider access to non-motorized low-impact recreation.

For a concrete example of the benefits that a trail system can provide to communities, we need to look no further than the Galloping Goose Regional Trail here in Victoria, which has been designated as the first section of B.C.'s portion of the Trans Canada Trail. Across British Columbia, our government is working with Trails B.C., the Trans Canada Trail Foundation, the Outdoor Recreation Council and local community groups to make our province a leader on this national initiative. We think it's fitting that we should be.

We've pledged to provide help with rights-of-way, Crown land issues, consultation with communities and affected landowners, and other routing considerations. This bill is a key part of our government's role in this project, as we try to resolve the questions of landowner liability. In planning the route for the Trans Canada Trail, government and community groups encountered a longstanding issue in British Columbia. Fear of liability is causing landowners to restrict recreational access to their properties. In the context of the Trans Canada Trail, this means that private land owners are reluctant to allow recreational trail use of their land and that local communities are hesitant to assume full responsibility for managing local portions of the trail.

Amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act will help to resolve these problems by lowering the duty of care owed to non-paying recreationalists on recreational trails and certain classes of undeveloped lands. These amendments more equitably balance the duty of care between occupiers and the non-paying recreationalists, and will facilitate the completion of the Trans Canada Trail.

The amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act achieve this balance by providing that occupiers have a duty to non-paying recreationalists not to create a danger with intent to do harm to them or damage their property and not to act with reckless disregard to their safety or the integrity of their property. This duty of care currently applies to persons willingly accepting risk and for trespassers on agricultural land.

Let me just pause here a moment and emphasize that these amendments do not in any way obligate landowners to allow access to their property. The changes merely alter their obligations if they choose to allow access.

This reduced duty of care will apply on defined classes of land. These are premises used primarily for agriculture; rural premises which are used for forestry or range purposes, are vacant or undeveloped, are forested or wilderness premises, or are private roads; recreational trails; and utility rights-of-way and corridors. In defining the classes of land subject to the lower duty of care, the intent is to capture rural and undeveloped lands which are not subject to the same expectations of careful management and supervision as urban properties. Recreationalists on these lands can be expected to undertake activities with a greater awareness of the risks involved.

Changes have also been made to the duty of care owed to trespassers and criminals to ensure that anomalies are not created in the duty of care owed to other classes of persons. With respect to trespassers, the lower duty of care currently applies to trespassers on agricultural land. These amendments will extend the lower duty of care to trespassers on the enumerated classes of undeveloped land. This will avoid creating a situation where a higher duty of care is owed to a trespasser than to a recreationalist. Similarly, the lower duty of care will be extended to apply to the persons who are trespassing on premises with the intention of committing a criminal act or in the commission of a criminal act. This will avoid creating a situation where a higher duty of care is owed to a criminal than to a recreational user of the land.

These amendments represent a careful rebalancing of the duties and obligations which lie between occupiers and users of their land. In making any changes in this area, we have been cautious to preserve not only the right of the public to litigate but also the right of the landowner to restrict and control access to their property. While the amendments will adjust the duty of care enough to accomplish the objectives of the Trans Canada Trail initiative, significant flexibility remains to allow the courts to protect parties who may be injured through the fault of an occupier.

In conclusion, let me say how pleased I am to be able to advance these amendments, which have long been requested by many recreationalists and rural land owners wishing to

[ Page 7682 ]

allow non-paying recreationalists the use of their lands. For several years, these two groups have shared a common interest in promoting recreational access to undeveloped land, but fear of liability has been the fence between them. We have heard the common request of so many British Columbians. With these changes, we are opening a gate in that fence to promote recreational access throughout our province and, in particular, access to the Trans Canada Trail.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to stand and offer comments on second reading of Bill 16, Occupiers Liability Amendment Act. Simply, we support the intent of this act, and I think that many of the comments the minister made are positive. We think that we will see an increased use of tourism and increased support for recreational activities in agricultural and forest properties throughout the province, because of this bill.

In my former political life as a municipal politician. . . . This bill has been asked for, as the minister said, for a number of years by local government wishing to create trail systems but not having the ability to purchase the land. This bill, I think, will allow landowners to allow access to their property -- to many of the small tracts of land as well as the very large ones throughout the province. It gives them that level of comfort with liability, which they didn't have before.

At first reading of this bill, I wasn't sure why it was being put forward by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. It seemed more appropriate for the Attorney General to be bringing this bill forward. But as the Trans Canada Trail is the pre-eminent reason for this, I can see why the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is the author of this particular bill.

In committee stage discussion, I will get into the area in the bill, section 1, section 3(3.1), on trespassing with the intent of committing a crime. I think there needs to be some discussion in that area as well.

There are two examples I'd like to offer for the minister's consideration. On Galiano Island in my riding, there is a desire for a trail system, but I think there's a lack of funds to do that, as in most areas of the province. This bill offers a solution for large forest lot owners to contribute to a trail system in many of the Gulf Islands, but that one comes to mind because they have been working jointly on plans for forestry lot trails and beach trails as well.

The other one was in the municipality of Saanich, where Saanich was trying to complete a trail system adjoining a very small piece of property. It was unable to get access across private property. I believe this will solve problems like that throughout the province.

In bringing forward a bill that deals with the Trans Canada Trail, local government, in asking for this bill, saw that it will also create many, many other opportunities throughout the province. So I'm pleased to add that the official opposition will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to the discussion in committee stage.

J. Dalton: To endorse the words of my colleague the Environment critic, we will certainly be supporting the bill. He did raise the question that many of us asked around the caucus table of why this bill was being sponsored by the Environment minister and was not -- where it would seem logical to lie -- within the purview of the Attorney General. However, that doesn't really matter. The fact is, of course, that the essence of the bill is worthy of support.

If I recall correctly, I think the first Occupiers Liability Act introduced in this province was in 1974, and that was under a previous NDP government. I'm casting my mind back to the fuzzy days of both law school and practice and my instructional years at Langara, when occupiers' liability was a frequent area of discussion. I recall that the intention of the bill. . . . I would bet you at least a loonie, hon. Speaker -- if I'm allowed to say that -- that the Attorney General at the time sponsored that bill. I somehow don't think the Environment minister did.

I presume the intention of the original Occupiers Liability Act was to tidy up a wealth of case law and common law that didn't always have a common theme or consistency on the issue of occupiers' liability.

Since 1974, of course, there has been a further body of case law dealing with the interpretation of the act that we are now amending. I think it will only be tested by time as to how the amendments that we're going to put through the House this session will play in this intriguing world of torts and, in particular, in the tortious world of occupiers' liability. It is an area where many pitfalls do lie -- certainly for the landowner, whether the occupier is charging a fee for someone coming onto the land or, as in the case the minister explained, where the occupier, out the goodness of his or her heart, is allowing the Trans Canada Trail to in fact come to fruition through the granting -- with no fee, of course. . .so people can come onto private property.

[3:45]

It will be interesting to see how this does play out over time. I haven't had the time to study Bill 16 in the depth that it perhaps needs to see how it will fit, as I've already commented, with the previous case law -- both the common law and the statute law that have been created in this province since 1974. I guess it will be up to the new lawyers who are coming out of our law schools -- who, of course, will also be facing a new Legal Profession Act, to which we have just given second reading. . . . It will be up to that new profession to entertain the interpretation of Bill 16, but we certainly have no difficulty endorsing it in principle.

J. Cashore: Given the importance and the value to all Canadians of the Trans Canada Trail, and given that this piece of legislation deals with a very important component in order to facilitate and enable the eventual goal of achieving the Trans Canada Trail, in my view, there is really no better advocate at this point in time for the trail, and indeed for this legislation, than the Minister of Environment. I think that is very clearly where this bill deserves to lodge, because surely this legislation should be an opportunity for this Legislature to be inspired by the vision of the Trans Canada Trail -- one of the far too few uniting themes within this country that we can all be proud of and be a part of, and that we can enjoy. In conclusion, I just want to say that I am very pleased that this is seen as an environmental project. It's one that I know all British Columbians will be proud of, and one that I as a grandfather look forward to being able to enjoy along with my grandchildren.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Environment to close debate.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm certainly pleased to speak briefly in closing debate on second reading. I'd like to thank the members on both sides of the House who are supporting the amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act. I think they've spoken well to the key principles of why we want to support this amendment -- in particular, to the tourism and recrea-

[ Page 7683 ]

tional opportunities that are offered. I would also commend my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville for talking about the vision that unites Canada. I think, again, that is a great purpose, and I feel very pleased and honoured to be sponsoring this bill as a result of the themes that have been raised in this House today.

One of the members made mention of needing to create other trails across British Columbia, and I think it speaks to the efforts that communities may be able to make to create what we call spurs of the Trans Canada Trail. There might be an opportunity for a community like my own, in Kamloops, to tie into the Trans Canada Trail network as it's currently envisioned, and it will be able to provide the many opportunities and economic benefits that members have spoken of so well.

On the point of the legal questions that are raised through this bill, I would commend to the members the legislation that exists in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which is virtually identical to the bill that we are introducing in the House today. The members may find guidance and that their questions are answered, as well, in examining those bills and seeing that we are as consistent here in British Columbia as other jurisdictions across Canada are.

Hon. Speaker, with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 17.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: Ten years ago, existing landfills were filling up rapidly, with no alternatives in sight. Understandably, there was intense resistance within local communities when new landfill sites were proposed. Community recycling programs were voluntary and small-scale and enjoyed little or no government support. The Ministry of Environment's regional special waste depots diverted only a very small fraction of the province's household hazardous waste and in fact lacked the capability to meet the potential demand. At a time when environmental concern had reached an all-time high across North America, there were few opportunities for people to take part in solutions to the one issue they thought ought to be manageable. Overall, inertia on the solid waste issue was viewed as symbolic of society's broader failure to deal with environmental problems on a host of other fronts.

By contrast, the provincial target of a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000 was set at the beginning of this decade, and in 1995 British Columbians had cut the amount of garbage they sent to disposal by 32 percent per person. The 1996 and '97 data are still being compiled, but we are confident that British Columbia is ahead of any other province in Canada. We have approved solid waste management plans to be in place for 25 out of the 27 regional districts across British Columbia, and the remaining two are into the homestretch.

If the greater Vancouver regional district, the capital regional district and a few other larger regional districts follow through with their proposed composting initiatives, the province could well reach over 40 percent reduction. Again, this will keep us at the forefront of reducing the amount of material that goes into landfills.

The expanded beverage container deposit-return system will take us even further. When that system comes into effect in October, producers will be responsible for recovering at least 85 percent of all containers sold, and we anticipate a good return rate. Over 90 percent of beer and cider containers and nearly 80 percent of soft drink containers are returned under the existing depot system.

Waste reduction has also been aided immensely by the existence of a dedicated business sector -- the recycling industry -- committed to and specializing in these solutions.

All of this is good news, but we can't afford to underestimate the challenges we're still facing. Landfills are still filling up, and population growth can be expected to significantly offset the per capita reductions we achieve in terms of overall waste generation, pressure on land and potential environmental impacts. We need to continue to develop and implement creative, effective and efficient means of reducing and managing municipal solid waste.

Regional districts play a critical role in the province's effort to reduce and manage solid waste. In 1992 the Waste Management Act was amended to support this role. Those amendments enabled regional districts with approved solid waste management plans to specify operating requirements for and set and collect fees from the owner or operator of any site or facility storing recyclable material or managing solid waste. These amendments were intended to help the greater Vancouver regional district and other regional districts to effectively manage private landfill sites and recycling facilities.

The current amendments are based on the 1994 recommendations of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Task Force, and they have long been requested by the greater Vancouver regional district, the capital regional district and other regional districts. The greater Vancouver regional district has experienced difficulties in implementing the bylaws that it passed to carry out these responsibilities. Some solid waste management operators have challenged the authority for the bylaw under the Waste Management Act. This response has made it difficult for the greater Vancouver regional district to administer and manage its solid waste management program. In addition, based on the experience of the GVRD, other regional districts are holding back from taking action in this area until the Waste Management Act is amended.

These amendments address the concerns of regional districts by providing very explicit bylaw powers that enable them to effectively manage recyclable material and municipal solid waste. The amendments will also allow regional districts to fairly allocate infrastructure costs for recycling programs, by enabling them to recover the cost of recycling programs from all waste generators. This system creates a level playing field for waste haulers and local sites and ensures that solid waste management plans of regional districts remain viable.

In addition, the amendments create a one-window approach for the regulation of private disposal sites in the GVRD. Currently the province and the GVRD both play a role in the regulation and monitoring of private sites in the GVRD. Operators require permits from the province under the Waste Management Act with respect to environmental protection matters. In addition, operators require licences and have to comply with the GVRD's bylaw with regard to operational and land use planning requirements.

[ Page 7684 ]

To streamline this process, the amendment delegates the province's powers to permit and regulate private sites to the GVRD, managing municipal solid waste within the regional district. The GVRD currently has similar authority to regulate air contaminants within the district on behalf of the ministry. Provision is also made in these amendments to delegate the provincial powers relating to municipal solid waste to other regional districts that may request them.

We are conscious that these are significant powers, and we have heard industry concerns regarding overregulation and the potential for abuse. In response, we have built in safeguards to ensure that these powers are used in a fair and responsible manner. Specifically, the bylaw powers can only be implemented by a regional district if such use is authorized in its approved solid waste management plan. This is significant, as solid waste management plans cannot be approved unless there has been an adequate review and public consultation process involving member municipalities and other stakeholders.

In addition, bylaws made under these powers must have ministerial approval, and the ministry is committed to working with industry to develop criteria that will be used to review such bylaws.

Finally, these bylaws can be amended, suspended or cancelled if the minister considers it in the public interest to do so.

In conclusion, we are confident we have struck the right balance between providing regional districts with the powers they need and ensuring that they are used in a responsible manner.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to be able to offer some comments on Bill 17, the Waste Management Amendment Act. I think much of what the minister said. . . . Her intent is positive, but I think this bill misses the mark. I intend to show a number of areas where I think the bill misses the mark and needs improvement. I can say that we will not be supporting the bill on second reading. I intend to offer some amendments that may be helpful during committee stage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, could I start off with the goal of 50 percent reduction that regional districts have undertaken? Some have done better than others, but I think the commitment is there to continue to 50 percent and on, into the next century. I think that much of the reduction in the past eight or ten years has been because government has been supported by business and industry -- as well as individuals -- to cut back. A lot of that has been costs; the costs of recycling or the costs of just dumping have gone up and up. It has alerted people to the need to recycle for other than environmental reasons -- for financial reasons. I would say this to the minister: I believe that the next 50 percent in reduction is because people now understand the need and want to reduce and recycle. It's not the time to use a hammer and a lot of money in taxes but more of a carrot approach to recycling. Make it desirable to recycle as much as we possibly can but not through increased costs, not through increased bureaucracy and not just on the local taxpayer.

[4:00]

Some of the problem with this bill, in essence, is that in changing responsibility from provincial government to regional government, you're really off-loading a cost to the local taxpayer. I think that the cost for the local taxpayer has plateaued. We're in a position now where the cost of everything from hauling through to recycling has been taken to a level where people feel they're taxed enough for these particular services.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We need to stimulate the recycling industry, and I don't think this bill does that. I think you will probably see a retrenching of many of the private industries in recycling and possibly even layoffs because of that. I do agree with the minister that this is a regional district responsibility. I believe it has worked well. We're at a turning point, and Bill 17 doesn't turn the corner. It doesn't say to me that the next ten years are going to be as accomplished as the last ten years. Specifically for myself, I think why the bill misses the mark is that it didn't harness the thoughts of the industry. It lacked consultation on a broad perspective with the industry and with potential new recycling partners, and the way the bill is written, I don't see that taking place at the local level either. I think that the authority is there minimally and probably won't be used.

I think, as I said, that in the next ten years we have to harness industry. We have to harness individuals in meeting new challenges in recycling. The bill fails the consumer, because you're going to see increased costs and no increased incentive for participation in recycling. It doesn't harness the thoughts and plans of the industry that I think will be the success story of recycling in the next century. It's not going to cost for recycling; it's going to be a benefit for individuals and for companies to recycle. That's where the bill goes off the mark.

I think, too, that the authority given to regional districts has the potential to distort the marketplace. I view business and the recycling business in general as a key player in how you get past that 50 percent, how you get to 60 percent and on. I think that's the goal that all British Columbians have, and I don't see that happening in this bill. As I said earlier, I will propose some amendments that I believe will help. Whether or not the bill can be acceptable will depend on those amendments.

The three areas, if I could just recap, are: the downloading of costs to the local taxpayer that I see happening here, and the potential is very great for that to happen; the lack of new incentives for industry to participate and for new recycling companies to appear on the scene -- that initiative is taken away in this bill and given to government; and I think that the other one for me is: how do you harness an individual's motivation to recycle and to keep the environment as number one? I think the next ten years is with the carrot approach, not the hammer approach. I see this bill as not even touching on the positives and the encouragement that I think need to be there to reach the 50 percent mark and to go on into the next century to do some really good things in recycling.

There are many things that I believe government can do and must do in the coming years to encourage the growth of recycling if we're going to be successful not just with the recycling that we see in the blue box but with hazardous waste and of a number of other items that there aren't markets for now. There need to be markets for them. We have to create those markets. I believe business is an opportunity to create those markets. Finally, I believe that the consultation that didn't take place in the drafting of this bill needs to take place before it goes any further. I think that that would have allowed the bill to be more all-encompassing and more positive for recycling and the growth of recycling in the future.

I look forward to much greater discussion at committee stage. Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments.

[ Page 7685 ]

J. Dalton: I won't cover any of the ground that our critic has outlined as to the opposition's concern with this bill.

I'm going to comment specifically on the reaction of the industry -- and firstly on the reaction of the private hauling industry -- before this bill was even tabled in the House recently. Obviously the industry knew there was something coming down the pipeline. There was concern expressed at several meetings held by private haulers. Specifically, there was a meeting held on March 25 in the capital regional district, at which time the industry did express, and went on record as stating, that there were several concerns in the pending bill. And, of course, we would have to say that those concerns have been restated, as the bill has in fact now been tabled.

The concerns of the industry were, just to give you a sampling, that regional districts -- monopolies -- might be created and that those would not be accountable to either the industry or the public in general. They also expressed concerns that regional districts could unfairly compete with private haulers and recyclers. I believe that my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands made an observation about a level playing field. We all have to search for that, and I cannot say that Bill 17, in its current format, reaches that objectivity and that level playing field. Those were some of the concerns that were voiced on March 25.

Now, there was a ministry official at that March 25 meeting who assured the stakeholders -- at least he went on record as assuring the stakeholders -- that regional districts would have to apply for and justify their needs to acquire the increased authority allowed for in the bill. That would include public review and ministry approval. I believe, if I am correct from my reading of the bill, that some of those concepts are in fact in Bill 17.

Another concern and another viewpoint given at the time of the meeting that the ministry official tried to assure the private haulers about is that there would, of course, be consultation before any change in the law was enacted. Well, quite frankly, as an aside, I don't think that the track record of this government on consultation is a terribly glorifying one. When I see that word in any context involving this government, I shudder. And I'm sure that many people in the private hauling industry, like any other industry in B.C., would agree with that. So we'll have to see consultation.

At the March 25 meeting there were also concerns about potential job losses and profit losses and about the imposition of more regulations. We've already had to address in this session the issue of regulations, which on the one hand, the government says it's reducing; yet on the other hand, the evidence seems to run counter to that. We will recall, of course, that there was a promise in both the throne and the budget speeches about cutting red tape. I don't know whether Bill 17 measures up to that promise of the government, but certainly there is a concern in the industry that it does not. In fact, the reverse is probably true. I needn't tell the sponsoring minister, the Minister of Environment, about the impact of regulations. We have discussed in this House the Treasury Board memo of last year that dealt with the 20,000 jobs lost and the $1.3 billion lost to our economy because of red tape in her own ministry. So I'm hoping that the minister isn't bringing to us yet another bill that is going to further add to that red-tape scenario.

There was another meeting. A subsequent meeting was held, also involving private haulers, on April 2. It was also in Victoria. Ministry of Environment officials and industry representatives from both the Island and the lower mainland were at that meeting. The summary of that meeting has an interesting title: "Consultation With the Recycling Industry." It has a nice little ring to it. But that, from our knowledge, is the only consultation meeting of record. Again, as I commented earlier, consultation and this government don't really seem to go hand in hand. Then, of course, the bill was tabled on May 1, just a week ago. So concerns that were expressed at the April 2 meeting included too much control by regional districts -- a recurring theme; additional fees were feared; unfair fees were also a fear; and there was also a comment around the table about a potential restriction on trade -- that is, private industry and the trade impacts. So there are concerns in the industry. There have been many comments already on Bill 17. Those concerns should be acknowledged, and they should be taken into account before this bill is pushed further ahead. The government should ensure that consultation is more than one meeting held just weeks before the bill is tabled. It's not adequate by any stretch to allow the stakeholders in this very important industry only one true opportunity to voice concerns.

On the regional district side -- and there are two sides to every argument -- both the GVRD and the capital regional district are, in general, supportive of this bill. And the UBCM, when I contacted them, said that they didn't have any particular problem with the bill. One thing that they were very surprised was missing from this bill is a process for dispute resolution. One official that I spoke to and also one executive member of the UBCM drew that to my attention: no dispute resolution process in Bill 17. We on this side have to ask: why is that not there? This is not a difficult thing to have included in the bill, I would think. Given the concerns already of both the critic and myself -- and I'm sure others will be outlining them -- about the impact of Bill 17, I would invite the minister to reconsider the need for dispute resolution. There's no point in trying to address the problem "when and if," and as it's bound to come up, I think the bill should in fact anticipate disputes arising and have a mechanism in place so that those disputes can be resolved in a reasonably speedy manner. I wouldn't say in a non-contentious manner; obviously they will be contentious. But if the process is missing, then you already have a bone of contention even before you get to the substantive question itself.

One other thing about the missing element of dispute resolution that the people I talked to at the UBCM expected to see in the bill. . . . That's certainly one thing they commented on. It's not there, and they expected it to be there.

So those are the concerns that industry is on record as expressing, and that certainly should be taken into account as we look further at this bill, both in second reading and at the committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Burnaby-Willingdon on a matter. . . .

J. Sawicki: One would think I was rising to speak on recycling, which I'm apt to do in this House. But I'm actually rising to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery now are a class of 44 grade 9 students, from Burnaby Central Secondary School. I just had a chance to have a great chat with them, and they asked lots of interesting questions. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Hayward and Mr. Chow. A parent accompanying them is Ms. Starr. I would like to ask this House to welcome this class from Burnaby Central Secondary School in my riding and to say that I hope they've had a great day here at the Legislature.

[ Page 7686 ]

[4:15]

T. Nebbeling: I will be very brief, as many of the points that I was going to raise have already been raised by my two colleagues.

What I would like to do on the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, is bring a new element into the debate that has not been introduced either by the minister or by my colleagues, and that is the role of municipalities up to now. When the program of 50 percent reduction of solid waste in the landfills in municipalities and in districts was introduced in 1992, there was a clear understanding that municipalities were going to have to deal with the cost consequences of achieving that goal. In many communities what you saw happening was that municipalities were actually forced to start accommodating the recycling components of that reduction of 50 percent of solid waste in the landfills. That has obviously come with a cost, and I don't think anybody at any time has ever objected to seeing that kind of expenditure take place, because there is no doubt of the strong support for recycling in this province.

At the same time, when this was happening, municipalities were also given the opportunity or the power to introduce tipping fees. Most of the communities and municipalities that were involved in producing reduction or complying with the requests for reduction, and that had to make a capital investment in recycling centres, took the opportunity to look at the tipping fees. At the same time, they did something that only a municipality can do: they looked at the impact on the property tax payers and the people using the landfill. As a municipal council, you're very careful to make sure that you don't overtax your citizen or tax your citizen out of your community, especially these days, when municipal councils already have to charge fairly high property taxes. So there was always this check on how much could be charged by municipalities when people dropped off a truckload of garbage at the solid landfill.

I'm afraid, with the control being taken away from municipalities to a large extent and going into the hands of regional districts, that it is going to have a very negative impact on communities. I don't think anybody here would think that the introduction of this bill is not going to have financial consequences. I think we all must agree that there will be an increase for providing the service of the management of the solid waste landfill and at the same time achieving the objective of the 50 percent reduction.

It is very easy for a body like a regional district to impose new forms of taxation or an increase in fees, because they are really not that close to the electorate any longer. That is one of the problems I see happening with this bill. I would have felt a lot better about the tipping fees and the fees that municipalities will pay to the regional districts -- if indeed the regional district becomes the manager of the whole regional operation -- if these fees were to a certain extent controlled by the municipal councils. I know the minister is most likely going to say: "Well, you know, it's the board of the regional district, of which the municipality is a member, that would ultimately be the body to control these rates." That may be the case in practice, but in reality it has never really happened.

All we have to do is look at the GVRD. The greater Vancouver regional district has constant dispute and debate and polarization around an issue like solid waste management in particular. The reason is that some municipalities do not feel that some of the rules imposed by the regional district apply to them. For that reason, they don't really want to participate in the program and they don't want to pay for that program. I think we're going to see a lot of this kind of debate being created by this bill.

The other point, of course, is that where municipalities are involved in solid waste management and the landfills, anybody who's involved in the recycling is most likely coming from that local level. I'm going to take my own riding as an example, and I'm going to take the SLRD, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. There are about 30 small businesses operating in these landfills, doing all kinds of things. Some are into root removal; some are into removing rubber tires and batteries; others are involved in gyproc removal. All these businesses employ two or three individuals. The whole landfill business has created a nice little sub-business that gives income to a number of people in these communities. My big fear, of course, with this particular approach is that many of these small companies will disappear, because the regional district is going to look for one operator. It's much easier to administer and to get a fee. Not only are municipalities and users going to pay more; it's also going to eliminate opportunities for a lot of people -- hundreds of people -- in the province when this authority disappears from that local level into the regional district. My concern is that on the one hand, I support regionalization of the solid waste management. At the same time, I do not think we should do it at the cost of the factors that I just described.

The third point I'm really worried about, as well, is that, as my colleague agreed to and noticed, we are talking so much about reducing bureaucracy and getting rid of red tape. I can tell you again from experience that when this type of approach was discussed in my area, the first thing the regional district did was come up with all kinds of programs for how it was going to promote, advertise and entice people into this recycling mode. The cost associated with just the regional advertising approach was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe that when you are into recycling and you do it on a municipal level and let the locals take care of it, it is much more effective and certainly a lot cheaper.

To me, this bill reflects certain values that I really have a problem with. At the same time, I must say that I do support the objective of a reduction in the landfill and of more recycling in this province. But what I see happening here is that the control of the landfills will truly go to the regional districts. It will eliminate a large number of jobs, and it will ultimately cost the taxpayers a lot more money. I don't think these are the values we are trying to achieve with this bill. So, like my colleagues, I will oppose this.

G. Wilson: I've followed this debate on Bill 17 with considerable interest. I've heard the two members from West Vancouver -- one from West Vancouver-Capilano and the other from West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- talk about some of the issues they have. One is that the industry would be upset about this, and the other is that the municipalities would be upset that you might have some transfer to the regional districts. The critic from Saanich North and the Islands said that there are a number of issues that he has concern about, and I actually share some of his concerns. The member for Saanich North and the Islands alluded to the one issue which I think is really at the heart of the reason why this legislation is not good legislation -- that is, an amendment to the Waste Management Act allows it to do an end run around the Municipal Act and to bypass the one group who are going to pick up the cost of all of this, and that's the electors.

That's the issue. I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands alluded to it: that the ultimate person who's

[ Page 7687 ]

going to pick up the tab on this is the elector. Yet this specifically says that the regional district can, with the consent of the minister, pass a bylaw and adopt that bylaw for the purpose of preparing a waste management plan or for implementing that waste management plan. It says it "does not require (c) the council of the municipality or board of a regional district to provide an opportunity for electors to petition against it, or (d) the assent of the electors, a petition, an initiative plan or consent on behalf of the electors referred to in that Act."

What we're supposed to be doing in second reading is talking principles. Now, this bill is introduced by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, an individual for whom I have a great deal of respect and whose intention in the introduction of this bill is honourable. I don't think that there's anything untoward going on here. But the language of this bill strikes right to the heart of the most fundamental principle in a democratic system -- that is, you don't levy taxation without providing an equal opportunity for representation. You certainly don't allow the municipality to come in with a plan that is developed by. . . . Later in this act, in fact, they can delegate authority to one individual, who can hold the powers of that regional district or municipality to develop and implement this plan, come to government, have government sit down and work it out.

It doesn't say there has to be adequate consultation with the electors. It says there has to be adequate consultation between the regional district and/or municipality and this government. It says nothing about the taxpayers. . . . They don't have to be consulted at all. In fact, this specifically says that you can now implement this without consulting them at all, without even the opportunity of a counterpetition, which is about as benign a way of doing it as you might find. So I think that this principle alone says this is not the way to go.

Let's talk for a second about the need to try and reduce the amount of municipal waste. I don't think anybody in this House is not in favour of trying to reduce the amount of materials going into landfills, especially those materials that are noxious and that may pose a hazard over the long term in terms of dealing with those hazardous wastes. I think all of us want to try and eliminate them from the waste stream in the first place. We're doing a good job, and the minister alluded to how good a job we're doing.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said that we're all in favour of getting rid of red tape, although one would wonder where we're going to put it all with this waste plan -- certainly not with the waste into the landfills, I suppose. We'll recycle the red tape into another level of government, no doubt. I'm sure there's a ministry over there that would love to have that recycled red tape.

B. Penner: Bill 14.

G. Wilson: Bill 14, as the member for Chilliwack says. But in any event, I think that this really does strike to the heart of what's wrong with this bill.

The Municipal Act demands amendment. I think the members of UBCM and certainly AVIM and all the associate members of UBCM as a parent body have asked this government to bring in amendments to the Municipal Act to provide additional powers and authority to the municipalities. I think that is the appropriate place for this level of power and the degrees to which this level of power is going to be handed on to the municipalities. That is the place for this to take place, not through Bill 17, the Waste Management Amendment Act.

Although I understand the intent of what's being done here, the potential for enormous outrage in the communities when this bill is passed -- because some regional district or municipality is thinking in good conscience that they're doing the right thing -- is going to be phenomenal. I mean, I shudder to think what may happen to this member when this member goes back to Powell River, which had a huge battle over whether we have a landfill or an incinerator, and whether or not we need to hook the incinerator with the new boiler concepts that were out at the pulp mill, and so on and so forth. They eventually convinced the municipality to go to a plebiscite -- which they called a referendum but was really a plebiscite -- to see whether or not the landfill, which was the waste management plan of the regional district, was acceptable to the public. It was overwhelmingly turned down. They did not want that landfill to go ahead, because it was right in the drainage basin of the watershed that fed the major water system that provided municipal water, and yet that was the only "approved" site.

Under this act, the regional district could turn around and say: "You know what? We like the original plan, guys. We've got the approval of the minister. We're just going to go ahead and do it. We don't need a referendum; we don't need a petition." I can tell you, in my community of Powell River, you are going to find that there will be civil war under this act -- really. And I'm not. . . . Well, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit -- hopefully, just a bit of exaggeration there. Maybe it won't be civil war; it might be uncivil strife. Maybe we can put it that way. Certainly there will be huge conflict in the community.

I think what we have to do, hon. Chair, what we really need to do. . . . I don't know if the government is even going to entertain this, but I would certainly like to participate; I don't know about the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who has concerns. If I were in the government's position and this minister's position, I would hoist this for the time being. We've got a number of weeks left in the session. I would look at this section. I would look at what the proposed amendments may be to the Municipal Act and see whether or not this might in fact better be dovetailed into those kinds of amendments so we can at least build in the same kinds of protections that will be needed in the communities -- protection of two things: (1) make sure that the public is onside and on board with whatever the waste management plan is that's brought down, and (2) if they are going to end up having to pay the bill, for goodness' sake, let's make sure that they at least have some say in what the cost is going to be. I think that's only fair. So I would really suggest that we pull this from second reading for the time being. Let's look at the Municipal Act amendments and see where we go with it from there.

[4:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, I found the debate on the opposite side of the House very enlightening. Let me assure you, members opposite, it was never the intention of the bill to take away the ability or to require regional districts to bypass a consultation process with the public. I'll remind the members opposite of the remarks that I made about the fact that waste management plans cannot be approved unless there has been adequate review and public consultation with member municipalities, members of the public and so on. The intention is to maintain that principle.

But let me say this. I'd be happy to offer the members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver-Garibaldi the opportunity to sit down and talk about how we might look at those segments of the bill so that we can clearly understand that the intention is not to stymie that type of

[ Page 7688 ]

public consultation. Let me start there, because I think that's an important principle to recognize. I understand very clearly what the members opposite have said, and it's not my intention to do otherwise. I think there's an opportunity to work through those issues.

In terms of the downloading of costs, I think it's important to note that what we're trying to do is mesh two levels of government and take out a level of bureaucracy. So it isn't a matter of increasing red tape but of reducing it and providing the right level of government with the opportunity and ability, if they choose to. . . . And let's remember that this is an enabling bill, where a regional district may choose to take on these powers. It is designed in fact to deliver on some of the commitments that all of us in this House have talked about, which is the reduction of red tape and overlap and duplication between jurisdictions.

I would also point out that there were concerns raised about individuals that are private haulers, and that is indeed why I spoke particularly to the review of bylaws. It was to enable and ensure that there was fairness and justice in the treatment of industry overall. Those amendments were not put into this bill at the request of the regional districts, quite frankly -- UBCM, GVRD, and CVRD weren't interested in having those segments in -- but because of my intervention, which said that industry is concerned and that we have to ensure that it's just and fair and that there's an opportunity for review.

I'd also like to speak to some of the principles that were raised around the reduction of solid waste over time and moving beyond 50 percent. I believe it was the Environment critic who talked about the need to move beyond 50 percent and said that we should move towards a principle of more voluntary action. I really laud that goal. I think voluntary actions do in fact cause people to change.

Nonetheless, it's been my experience that as individuals we don't change our behaviours, in most cases, until there's some impact on ourselves personally. Quite often that's through cost. That's when we seem to notice, when we have to. . . . In the case of needing to reduce greenhouse gases, for instance, it's the cost of driving our automobiles or of maintaining ozone-friendly air-conditioning systems. Those are the things that drive us towards decision-making. It's not that we all aren't well-intentioned and that we don't care deeply about the environment. Nonetheless, it does seem to be that it's mandatory programs -- and sometimes it's the costs attached to them -- that force us all to change our behaviour. While I certainly believe that voluntary actions should form a part of what we do, I also believe that the kind of mandatory programs we've had through solid waste management planning around the province are fundamental to achieving our goals in reducing waste management.

As the member from the Sunshine Coast noted well in his remarks, solid waste management can almost bring people to blows in communities; there is no doubt. I have learned this if I've learned nothing else. I have learned in this job that there can be enormous conflicts in communities. Nonetheless, they are the right steps for us to take. We need to assure ourselves that we're working together -- local, regional and provincial governments -- in achieving those goals in a way that's fair both to industry and to the consumers.

Having said that, I'll leave my remarks, except to reiterate the assurance that I gave to the members opposite that I would be happy to take the time and opportunity to look through the bill with them, to address the specific nature of the potential amendments -- whether or not it does indeed complement the Municipal Act -- and to find a way to maintain the principles that I think everyone in this House can support. We can look to find ways to achieve that.

At this time I move second reading.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36
EvansZirnheltMcGregor
KwanHammellBoone
StreifelPullingerLali
OrchertonStevensonCalendino
GoodacreWalshRandall
GillespieRobertsonCashore
ConroyPriddyPetter
MillerDosanjhMacPhail
LovickRamseyFarnworth
WaddellHartleySihota
SmallwoodSawickiBowbrick
DoyleGiesbrechtJanssen

NAYS -- 33
SandersC. ClarkCampbell
Farrell-Collinsde JongPlant
AbbottReidNeufeld
CoellChongWhittred
JarvisAndersonPenner
G. WilsonWeisgerberReitsma
J. WilsonMcKinnonKrueger
DaltonBarisoffvan Dongen
SymonsThorpeHansen
StephensColemanHawkins
HoggNebbelingWeisbeck

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 19.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that Bill 19 be now read a second time.


[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, there are several pieces of legislation that are being amended, and one of them happens to be the Residential Tenancy Act. The amendments relating to the Residential Tenancy Act in this bill are intended to improve the tenancy dispute resolution system and ensure that disputes can be resolved in a manner that's fair and equitable to both landlords and tenants.

The first major change contained in this legislation is to end the retroactive review of rent increases for manufactured home park tenancies. In 1994 this government brought into

[ Page 7689 ]

force legislation to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases. In the case of manufactured home park tenancies, the legislation allowed tenants to apply for the review of any rent increase given since October 1992. While the ability to dispute past rent increases has benefited many tenants, it has created financial uncertainty for some landlords. To ensure fairness of the system for both landlords and tenants, this legislation puts an end to the review and potential rollback of past rent increases.

The second major set of amendments contained in this bill expands arbitrators' powers to resolve disputes. Both landlords and tenants have complained to us about the narrow ability of arbitrators to effectively and appropriately resolve disputes. For example, in the case of manufactured home park tenancy, the act prohibits a landlord from unreasonably withholding consent to assign a tenancy agreement to a prospective purchaser of the home. However, while an arbitrator may determine that the landlord is unreasonably withholding consent, the arbitrator has no ability to effect a transfer of the tenancy agreement. There are many more examples which could be cited. In short, parties are frustrated at being denied an appropriate remedy. The additional powers for arbitrators contained in this bill help to ensure more just resolution of disputes.

Landlord and tenant groups have also urged the government to take steps to improve the fairness and consistency of arbitration decisions. While a number of non-legislative initiatives are underway to improve decision-making, the third amendment also addresses that particular concern. The amendment will provide regulation-making power to define a word or phrase used but not already defined in this act. Defining terms used but not already defined in the act will assist all parties to have a consistent understanding of the legislation and thereby reduce the number of disputes that proceed to arbitration. For those disputes that do proceed to arbitration, defined terms will increase the consistency of decision-making.

The fourth major amendment is intended to enhance our ability to prosecute serious offences under the Residential Tenancy Act. Under the Offence Act we have six months from the time an offence is committed to commence a prosecution. Despite our best efforts, six months has proven to be insufficient time to fully investigate and prosecute Residential Tenancy Act offences such as harassment and intimidation. In cases of harassment and intimidation, tenants are often too afraid to come forward while they remain in the landlord-tenant relationship and, in the case of manufactured home park tenants, have too much at stake to risk losing their homes. Consequently, this legislation provides a two-year time limit to prosecute offences under the Residential Tenancy Act.

The next amendment we're proposing is also directed at improving the dispute resolution system. The act currently requires a manufactured home park tenant to apply for mediation of rent increase disputes before the tenant can apply for arbitration. Through experience we have learned that mediation is not appropriate in all cases. Consequently, this bill provides for regulation-making authority to allow the chair of the manufactured home park dispute-resolution committee to exempt certain disputes from the mediation requirement. We're proposing a series of regulation-making powers to more effectively provide for the resolution of disputes in the manufactured home park sector. For example, these regulations will address the process and criteria with respect to the assignment and sublet of a manufactured home park tenancy agreement upon the sale of the home to a new tenant.

Hon. Speaker, the government is aware that these amendments do not address all of the concerns about the residential tenancy dispute resolution system expressed to us by stakeholders. Further changes to improve the system will be discussed with stakeholders over the coming months and a fully rewritten act brought forward for consideration by this Legislature -- hopefully, next year, if we can manage that.

The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, also provides substantive amendments to the Trade Practice Act to enhance consumer protection in British Columbia, while also permitting ethical businesses to prosper in a fairer marketplace. These amendments will clarify existing powers of investigation and provide the director of trade practices with additional powers. The director of trade practices will be able to require any person, including a third party, to provide information, answer written inquiries, and produce materials or documents or other things relevant to an investigation. The use of written inquiries will provide for a much more efficient use of resources by the director and by businesses under investigation. This streamlining of the procedures for investigations will be less intrusive for business and more cost-effective for government.

The legislation will also allow the director to make inquiries directly to a financial institution about the financial transactions of a supplier under investigation. At present an order from a court is required to obtain financial information from a financial institution about the financial transactions of a supplier under investigation.

The Trade Practice Act is now used to stop organized commercial crime such as fraudulent telemarketing schemes and advance-fee loan schemes. Due to the highly mobile and adaptable nature of these schemes, the large numbers of consumers negatively affected and the difficulties in recovering any money lost by consumers, it has become necessary to provide the director of trade practices with the authority to deal expediently with such activities. Bill 19 provides the director with the authority to order a supplier to cease a misleading, deceptive or unconscionable practice. This will allow the director to rapidly intervene on behalf of consumers and prevent or minimize consumers' financial losses.

Advertising is indispensable to deceiving or misleading large numbers of consumers. This amendment will also increase consumer protection by making it an offence to publish an advertisement promoting the sale of a good or service that is the subject of an order of the director. In this way the director may notify an individual advertising a product or service that contravenes the act that the advertisement must be terminated or modified in some manner.

Since its introduction the Trade Practice Act has offered the consumers of British Columbia important protections with regard to the purchase of personal property, services and consumer loans. The purchasing and financing of a home is generally the most significant consumer transaction that an individual will enter into. Amendments to the act will ensure that the same high level of protection is now extended to the purchase of real property and to credit associated with real property.

In proposing this amendment, the question was why the act did not already apply to real property transactions. To answer the question, the ministry staff contacted Bill Neilson, who was Deputy Minister of Consumer Services in 1974 when the Trade Practice Act was introduced. His recollection was that the act was not extended to real property as the ministry did not have, at that particular moment, sufficient time to explore the possible ramifications. In addition, the govern-

[ Page 7690 ]

ment was apparently busy with other concerns. To quote Mr. Neilson: "We were fighting other bush fires -- for example, the Law Society, who simply could not believe that lawyers could be suppliers under the act." I'm pleased to tell you that lawyers are covered by the Trade Practice Act, as are other professionals.

During consultations with stakeholders and the legal profession, no specific reason was identified for excluding real property or credit associated with real property from the Trade Practice Act. These amendments will ensure that a basic level of protection exists in the future for those circumstances that are unanticipated or unique and that are not covered by legislation that specifically pertains to real property.

Bill 19 also strengthens protections for British Columbia consumers by removing incentives to continue with misleading, deceptive or unconscionable transactions. The legislation accomplishes this by creating new offences and by introducing a system of graduated fines. The new system removes the incentive to defraud consumers, since fines can also be based on illegal profits. Under some circumstances charitable solicitations by professional fundraisers may not be covered by the act. Therefore a minor amendment will provide consistency and clarify that the act applies to all charitable solicitations by professional fundraisers. In addition, Bill 19 will ensure that the original intention of the act -- to protect inexperienced consumers entering into first-time business opportunity contracts such as franchises -- is restored.

Finally, the bill amends the Consumer Protection Act to provide for continuous protection respecting travel clubs by defining them as "contracts for future services." Travel clubs in British Columbia have been using high-pressure sales to sell costly, lifetime memberships of limited value. Since the regulation that was brought into force last year expires, this amendment is retroactive to the date the regulation originally came into effect. With this legislation, consumers are provided a cancellation period, refund provisions and a limitation of two years on the term of contract when purchasing a travel club membership.

In summary, this legislation speaks to some much-needed amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, introduces measures to enhance the effectiveness of the Trade Practice Act, and provides continuous protection under the Consumer Protection Act with respect to travel clubs. That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: I think a week or so ago I rose to make some extraordinarily brief comments in second reading about the statute called the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. This statute, which is called the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, maybe breaks the rule that the other statute followed, in that I think this bill contains a number of fairly significant provisions across a range of statutes -- three different statutes that deal with three different kinds of problems. In fact, they deal with more than that. So to try to ascertain something like a consistent principle or theme here is a task that, frankly, eludes me. I think that there are some good things in this bill, some of which are overdue. And there are some things in this bill that I do not think are good and which will, I'm sure, both here today and, perhaps more importantly, during committee stage debate, excite some more vigorous debate than would be the case if this were really a housekeeping bill.

I want to talk for a moment about the things that the bill does in the area of consumer protection and trade practices. Perhaps I should begin by making this observation. What this bill does across each of the three areas that it deals with is extend the reach of the law and the institutions of the law and the reach of government into a wider range of transactions affecting consumers, affecting landlords, affecting tenants, affecting people who supply consumers with goods and services. It sees the long arm, if you will, of the government and the law becoming ever longer.

I think that while all of us might wish for a world in which consumers could be perfectly protected, in which the people who supply services and goods to consumers never lied about their products, in which landlords never took unfair advantage of their tenants and in which tenants never took unfair advantage of their landlords, that is not the world we live in. I think that some regulation of these transactions, of these relationships, is entirely legitimate. But we are also entitled to ask hard questions whenever the government comes along and says: "Well, the existing level of regulation is not enough; we need to take a further step. We need to add additional protections for consumers. We need to make more rules about the landlord-tenant relationship."

[5:00]

Given that I think we're allowed to ask, and ought to be asking, those questions, I look at the amendments to the Consumer Protection Act and the Trade Practice Act which are proposed here. The first of the two points that I want to make here has to do with the expansion of certain types of legislated and regulated consumer protection into the area of the purchase and sale of real property and mortgage interests. In his remarks, the Attorney General spoke about the question of why these kinds of transactions were not included when the act was first introduced in 1974, I think. I certainly can't quarrel with the Attorney General's explanation as to what was on the government's mind then.

Other things may have happened. It seems to me that in the 25 years since 1974, the buying and selling of real estate, especially residential real estate, has changed in one respect: the whole marketing and sale of large-scale condominium and apartment projects has become very much more a mass-marketing, mass-advertising consumer kind of transaction, analogous to transactions that occur across the range of personal consumables. So with the changes in the structure of this industry, it's probably entirely legitimate that we look at ensuring that there is parity among the levels of protection given to the consumers of personal goods and supplies and the consumers of mortgage interests and real estate interests.

I also think it's important that we not overstate where we're going here. I was reassured to hear the remarks that the Attorney General made in this context during his opening remarks a few minutes ago. In the press release that announced the extension of this protection to homebuyers, I saw the statement that before the introduction of these amendments, the Trade Practice Act did not cover the purchase of houses or condominiums, leaving homeowners who were deceived with no recourse. That may be true insofar as legislation is concerned. The common law has always protected the purchasers of real property, just as it protects the purchasers of personal property, from those people who lie or deceive as part of their sales tactics. Now, we could argue about whether or not the protection is as effective as it should be. Obviously, in some cases the people who are on the receiving end of the transaction are not going to be in a position to exercise their right of suit if they can't afford lawyers. Or the right to sue may be less meaningful because the defendants are a numbered company that has no apparent assets.

[ Page 7691 ]

But it's important to recognize that the law has traditionally offered some protection even to the class of people who are the purchasers of real property and who acquire mortgage interests. The law has always said that if you're going to sell property or if you're going to try to market a security interest, you need to tell the truth.

So now the government says, well, we need more protection for those people. I don't quarrel with the extension of the legislative protection in this area. In fact, on the whole, given the changes in the market that I've talked about, this is probably an overdue step. Let's be clear about one thing, though. The extension of legislative remedies to a new class of consumers, in respect of a new class of transactions, will not be meaningful unless those who are charged with the enforcement of these rules have sufficient resources to do their job. That is an issue that warrants discussion in committee stage debate. It would make no sense at all if an already-overstressed consumer protection regulatory system were to be further overstressed by the addition of new rights and remedies. People who thought that they had these new rights and remedies would obviously feel let down when they found that there was nothing to back them up. I don't think we want to do that to the consumers of British Columbia.

The second point that I want to raise now, in the context of the changes to the Consumer Protection Act and the Trade Practices Acts, is the power which the director of trade practices will have to order compliance with the act and the regulations: in effect, a power very similar to an injunctive relief -- the power to compel someone whom the director believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, is contravening the act and the power to order that person to stop contravening the act. I don't have a problem with giving the director of trade practices this additional power, provided that it's couched in appropriate terms.

Frankly, at this point of the review, generally speaking, the provisions are relatively carefully drafted -- with one exception. It may be an issue that the Attorney General will have an answer for when we explore it later. On my reading of what will become section 17.1 of the Trade Practice Act, the director appears to have the power to act without notice to the person who will be affected by the order. In lawyers' terms, it looks like the director has been given the power to make an order ex parte. I don't like ex parte orders; courts don't like ex parte orders. Generally speaking, courts probably won't like the conferral upon a statutory officer of the power to make ex parte orders.

In order to ensure that we have a bit of a sense of the parameters around the exercise of that power, and to make sure that the director is not being given a power which he can exercise arbitrarily or unfairly -- not that he would ever do so, but the issue may arise. . . . It's always our job here to try and prevent the possibility of those problems from arising. In all of those circumstances, that's going to be an issue that we'll return to in the committee stage debate on those parts of the bill.

I now want to turn to the other major subject of the bill, which is the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. Here it's worth noting that the balance that residential tenancy legislation seeks to strive for is between the legitimate rights and interests of tenants and the legitimate rights and interests of landlords. The questions that we need to ask and answer whenever we're looking at changes to the Residential Tenancy Act are around whether or not the balance is being tilted unfairly in favour of landlords or of tenants. Recognizing that it's not simply a question of fairness, in the sense that some of us may feel unhappy if tenants are not fairly treated or others of us may feel unhappy if landlords are not fairly treated, the fact is that if we don't strike that balance properly, then the economics that underlie the availability of rental housing will change. Over the course of time, if the balance is not struck properly, then the availability of rental housing may decline. In fact, some would argue that over the course of the last ten or 20 years, that balance has been struck unfairly in favour of tenants and that that is a reason why there is less housing constructed for the purpose of becoming rental housing available on the marketplace than there should be.

Those economic arguments are important to bear in mind when you're looking at changes to the act. If the act is amended in a way that makes the climate too hostile for landlords, then landlords will be driven out of the market; if the act is amended in a way that makes things too hostile for tenants, then tenants will similarly be affected. I think the next stage in this analysis is to realize that what residential tenancy legislation has wrestled with for as long as there has been residential tenancy legislation is not simply the issue of whether or not landlords should have the right to increase rent, or whether tenants should have the right to resist eviction on certain grounds. Equally important is whether or not there is in place a process to resolve these disputes that is fair, efficient, affordable, effective and -- perhaps even most importantly of all -- a process that generates some certainty and predictability around the decision-making that occurs.

We can't send every landlord-tenant dispute off to the courts. Courts are too expensive for that process, so we design alternative processes, and we create rules and procedures around those alternative processes with the aim in mind of creating some sort of certainty out there in the world of residential tenancy, so that landlords know what their rights are and tenants know what their rights are. If there is some certainty, even if from time to time people are less happy with some set of rules, there is a virtue in certainty alone. That virtue is at least as important as ensuring that the processes for resolving landlord-tenant disputes are also affordable, effective, fair and efficient.

The landlords and the tenants and the organizations that represent them have for quite a while been convinced that the process of residential tenancy dispute resolution in British Columbia doesn't meet any of those tests and certainly doesn't meet the test of certainty in predictability. What happens instead is that when disputes arise between landlords and tenants, they have to go and resolve them in front of arbitrators. The arbitrators apply a wholly uncertain set of rules with uncertain outcomes and with an appeal process that is, generally speaking, far less satisfactory than it should be. The result of all of that, interestingly enough, is that two groups who are ordinarily at odds with each other -- the landlord group and the tenant group -- are in agreement on the need for change. The Attorney General has averted to some of this in his remarks.

It is very disappointing that the Attorney General has not taken advantage of the opportunity to amend the Residential Tenancy Act. He has not taken advantage of the opportunity to deal with the important concerns that have been raised by these two constituent groups -- or, for that matter, to deal with another long-outstanding issue, which is to bring forward a whole new Residential Tenancy Act that in fact could be read and understood by landlords and by tenants. There are thousands of people across British Columbia who don't understand the Residential Tenancy Act and who should be

[ Page 7692 ]

able to. If they could understand the act and if they could understand the rules around the act, then they could make their own decisions, and we would be fostering that certainty and that predictability that are important.

[5:15]

It's unfortunate that this bill does not do that. In fact, I would say that this bill takes a step backward from that role, because in this bill there is a provision which I'm sure is well-intentioned but is going to have the result of fostering more uncertainty and more unpredictability in landlord-tenant relations. It's section 7 of the bill, which amends section 54 of the act, and it gives the arbitrator certain specific powers.

Now, I want to give as much credit as I possibly can where credit is due. One objective that is being met by this provision is ensuring that arbitrators do have some powers that there is currently some uncertainty about or in fact that they don't now have. If the goal is certainty and predictability, then there is some value in ensuring that arbitrators have clarity around the powers that they are given to exercise here. Giving the arbitrator the statutory power to order a landlord or a tenant to comply with the act is probably a good thing. I don't object to the notion that, in some respects, this is an improvement by giving arbitrators some certainty around the powers they have.

The poison pill -- in fact, there are two of them. . . . The first poison pill is in subsection (5)(f). That will give the arbitrators the power to "set aside a notice to end a tenancy agreement, with or without conditions, if the arbitrator is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that ending the tenancy agreement would create unreasonable hardship in relation to the conduct, breach or circumstances that led to the issue of the notice." Let me be clear about one thing. All of us can imagine examples. . . . In fact, I'm sure that we don't need to imagine them. There are probably enough real-life instances that fantasy is not required here. All of us can think of circumstances where a landlord has exercised a power that he or she has under a tenancy agreement in circumstances where it appears that the result is to create hardship, particularly in relation to the nature of the conduct that gave rise to the notice to evict. Similarly, I'm sure all of us can imagine situations where tenants are not acting in good faith with respect to their rights and obligations as tenants.

This is not really, in my view, about trying to ensure that we end the potential for unfairness in landlord-tenant relations; it's about the importance of predictability and certainty in those relationships. It's about the damage done to the potential for predictability and certainty when you give a power to arbitrators which is conditional upon an inquiry into hardship that is defined to be unreasonable in relation to other activities. That necessarily requires that arbitrators engage in a balancing exercise. The balancing exercise will be between, on the one hand, the conduct, the circumstances or the breach of the agreement that led to the issue of the notice to end the tenancy and, on the other hand, the question of hardship.

I don't think it will be easy for arbitrators to immediately come up with a fully articulated body of acceptable, fair and efficient principles that will tell us how that power will be exercised. I think the reverse will happen. This provision in these terms is far more likely to create uncertainty and unpredictability. In fact, I would take my fear one step further. Until we know what this provision really means, every tenant who is the unhappy recipient of a notice to end a tenancy agreement may say: "I have a remedy. I can complain about that. I can take that, at virtually no expense, before an arbitrator and have an argument about it." Hundreds and hundreds of tenants -- maybe thousands -- are being given an additional weapon in the armoury, if I can put it that way.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of tenants in British Columbia obey the rules, live in a way that is respectful of their neighbours' rights and their landlord's rights and will continue to do so, notwithstanding this bill. I don't think it's good public policy to create any incentive for the other condition to arise -- that is, a condition where tenants are almost statutorily invited to abuse the process of the relationship between them and their landlord. I don't think that's fair to landlords, and I don't think it's fair to tenants. I don't think it's fair to the tenant who lives next door to the tenant who's breaking the rules. I don't think it's fair to the tenant who wants a quiet apartment, who is unhappy with the noise being made night after night by the tenant next door. I also don't think that in the long run, it's fair to the tenants themselves, because the uncertainty and the unpredictability will create problems that won't help anyone.

I think that this particular provision is wrongheaded and is bad public policy. I think it will create more problems than it will solve. It will be the classic instance of the phenomenon of unintended consequences. The intended consequence is to prevent landlords from exercising their powers unfairly. The unintended consequence will be a general paralysis in the residential tenancy community on the part of landlords and tenants -- uncertainty about their rights and confusion about their responsibilities.

There is another place in this act where the same problem exists, although I do not think it is as serious as the problem in section 54(5)(f). That is in section 5 of the bill, which amends section 16 of the Residential Tenancy Act. Section 16(3) talks about the landlord's right to enter premises. Landlords sometimes need to enter a tenant's premises -- if a pipe bursts, if a window won't open, if there's an emergency in the suite, if there's an emergency outside the building and the landlord needs access to the suite in order to address the problem. Sometimes landlords need and must have the right to enter the premises.

What section 5 of this bill does is give the arbitrator a new power. If the arbitrator is satisfied that a landlord who exercised a right of entry did so for an improper purpose or at an unreasonable time or in an unreasonable manner, the arbitrator will be given the power to suspend those rights of entry or make an order with respect to the exercise of those rights.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Again, the objective here is probably to strike a balance that looks like it's a fair balance, to ensure that if landlords are unfairly or unreasonably exercising the power of entry, arbitrators have some power to deal with this. My concern is that this bill doesn't express, or confer upon the arbitrator, the power in terms that are sufficiently clear. Rather, it's an invitation to uncertainty again. I'm not sure that there is any easy solution to the problem, but what is the arbitrator going to do? What is an improper purpose? What is an unreasonable time? What is an unreasonable manner? Well, I can tell you that the tenant, who is lying there asleep at 4 o'clock in the morning, may think it is unreasonable for the landlord to barge in. And the landlord may think it is perfectly reasonable, because there's a burst pipe in the bathroom of the tenant. Reasonable people may agree that in that particular case the tenant should really yield to the landlord, because if the pipe isn't fixed, then the building will flood and no one will be able to live there.

[ Page 7693 ]

What happens, though, when there are unreasonable people? What is the process that's going to ensue from this? I know what the process is. I have been paid as a lawyer for years to earn my living by knowing what the process is. The process is that you argue about what's improper. The process is that you argue about what's unreasonable. The process is that you argue about whether it was an unreasonable time, as opposed to an unreasonable manner. It's good stuff to argue about. It makes for lots of litigation. Litigation can be expensive; it can make good incomes for lawyers. I don't think that, in the long run, it is the right step to address what I think -- and I say this again -- is really one of the most critical needs in the landlord-tenant community right now. That is the need to foster and enhance certainty, predictability, clarity -- rules that are understood, rules that can be understood by laypeople so that they can follow them and procedures that can be understood and followed with certainty and expectation of outcome by laypeople.

This bill doesn't do that, and I'm afraid that because of these problems, what would otherwise be a relatively good piece of legislation is tainted. I must say that the bad outweighs the good in this case. The problems created by, particularly, section 54(5)(f), or whatever it is, are sufficiently serious that they warrant opposition to the bill as a whole, even at second reading.

R. Coleman: I also rise to address Bill 19 in a number of areas and particularly relative to the residential tenancy portion of the amendment act. First of all, I must start out by complimenting the Attorney General this afternoon on one point of the bill: that after two years of asking, we're doing something about retroactivity and rent reviews for manufactured home parks. That has been a frustration within the marketplace and has caused a great deal of difficulty for homeowners and park owners alike. I hope that the intention of the bill is not to create additional hardship on the industry to the extent that we frustrate the residential tenancy arrangements -- to the point that instead of tilting something the wrong way, we actually create a runaway train and kill the ability for us to create residential tenancy and rental properties within this province in the future.

I have to go back to the same section my colleague was speaking about a minute ago, which is section 54(5)(f), dealing with unreasonable hardship with regard to residential tenancies. When you make an investment in a property, you expect that when you rent it out to a tenant, they will follow a certain set of rules and guidelines. You follow a certain set of rules and guidelines as the landlord; they follow a certain set of rules and guidelines as a tenant. The balance is that the tenant wants a clean, safe place to live, and the landlord wants to make sure that the rent coming to them is paid, that the property they own is taken care of and that their investment is protected.

In reality, in most residential tenancy arrangements, that takes place in this province. Although we do have what some people would refer to as soft rent controls in place, the marketplace has adjusted, and it has acquired some level of stability. But to throw in a section where unreasonable hardship all of a sudden comes in and is no longer a decision based on fact. . . . It's now based on a subjective condition that one party can take before an arbitrator and say: "I'm suffering unreasonable hardship here, and therefore I don't want my eviction to take place." The first thing that people in this province should know is the reason for a termination of tenancy and why it can take place. The reason that they would go to arbitration is that the reasons would be argued before an arbitrator.

But in the first one, we actually have three sets of notices: one is a ten-day notice, one is a one-month notice and one is a two-to-six-month notice. The ten-day notice is for non-payment of rent. Now, I can't understand that we would actually have the subjective opportunity in an act. But what if somebody can't afford their rent and goes before an arbitrator, and the arbitrator rules that due to undue hardship the eviction can't go through, even though they haven't paid their rent? Who picks up that cost? Who pays the mortgage, the utilities, the strata fees and the taxes on the property? The landlord pays all of that, and the individual can therefore be put in a financial hardship where they could actually go broke on a unit simply because an arbitrator arbitrarily makes the decision that the tenancy is not frustrated and therefore they can't go in.

This gives a huge increase in power to arbitrators in an already troubled system, in my opinion. There are no rules of evidence; there's no code of ethics; there are no rules of procedure; there are even no requirements for transcripts of hearings. Yet we are going to give the same people who are dealing with that the ability to say that due to undue hardship, they can turn down a request to terminate a tenancy.

[5:30]

Now, in the one-month notice section, we get into chronic abuse of the system, where somebody is breaking their residential tenancy agreement on a regular basis. It is required that everyone have a residential tenancy agreement under the rules we are presently operating under. So there is an agreement in place between the landlord and the tenant as to how they will operate. Yet this would allow for undue hardship for the frustration of that agreement. We're actually putting ourselves in between the operation of an agreement between two people and how they would behave in a business relationship.

I can tell you that if you start doing that in commercial tenancies where we have triple-net leases and somebody comes in on undue hardship somewhere down the road, we won't have any investment at all in this province. As it is, it's going to be very difficult to get investment into the residential tenancy product.

The reason that there are rules is that the rules aren't there just to protect the landlord; they're also there to protect the tenant. If I live in a building where somebody chooses to play their stereo loud at 4 o'clock in the morning -- at the top of its lungs -- time after time and I complain to my landlord, I want my landlord to do something about that because my own tenancy is now being disturbed. So what happens if this person goes in and pleads undue hardship? First of all, the undue hardship could end up with a person being able to play all kinds of games with their rent and disrupt the building, and the landlord now loses other tenants who move on to find a quieter building. The undue hardship is allowing somebody to stay in a frustrated residential tenancy agreement where people are literally abusing the system.

The tenancy arrangements in most situations work very well, simply because there is not an opportunity for overabuse on one side or the other. In this case, when we throw undue hardship in here, we might as well send a message to everybody that's out there: "Do not buy a secondary residence that you're going to rent to somebody. Do not build an apartment building for rent in this province, because under undue hardship your investment is at risk the day you want to. . . . If you are a real estate agent in this province, you'd better put in your sales agreements the fact that even though tenancy can be terminated for sale because you're buying a unit, it could be lost because of undue hardship. And you'd better be telling

[ Page 7694 ]

the real estate industry to put that clause in place so that frustrated agreements don't take place between buyers and purchasers and we end up in litigation in this situation."

The thing we have to realize is that we can't do this with undue hardship and frustrate the arrangement that people have with their investment and with their tenants. By going to this, you're now taking away what used to be a system which we could identify and by arbitration go and make decisions on tenancy and on unreasonable hardship.

My belief was that the intention of the Attorney General's department was to come to grips with the relationship between the manufactured home and the pad in a manufactured home setting, because that's a different type of tenancy that we deal with in this province. If that was the case, for two years we were making recommendations on how to deal with that and how you can take care of that situation by making some more security of tenure in the tenancy relationship within manufactured homes. But to throw it into a broad-scale statement under undue hardship is sending the market into disarray.

The next thing that will happen, I'm sure, is financial institutions. . . . If I were a lender on an apartment after this went through under undue hardship, and not knowing if the person I just gave the mortgage to to rent a property even had the security to control their rents or the behaviour of the building, I would question whether I'd even want to lend money to the building because of what it could do regarding disruption and the ability of the building to be maintained and taken care of.

This is the undue-hardship clause. . . . Now, Attorney General -- as you look skyward -- if the intention is to deal with the manufactured home setting and not the residential tenancy setting, then let's deal with the manufactured home setting. But believe me, this is like the little clause that was sitting in the Builders Lien Act that caused so much difficulty in the industry overnight; this is another one. This is one of those things that will be misunderstood, that will be abused and that will create uncertainty in a marketplace where we want to see growth. We need residential tenancies; we need rental property in this marketplace. As our economy changes, our marketplace shifts, and as it shifts, we need rental properties. If we don't have rental properties, then what we have is a difficulty, and we create a housing crisis.

It's just unbelievable to me that after all the good work to try and get rid of the retroactive rent review, this section, however it was drafted, somehow came out in this manner. I think it's important that we realize that when we get to committee stage of this debate. . . . Hopefully, the Attorney General will have the opportunity to discuss with his staff the real meaning of what we're trying to accomplish here, because at this point in time, if it's interpreted the way I'm describing it to you today, you just tilted the scales; we lost a lot of rental investment. People that have rental properties will be starting to get out of them, simply because of the fact that there's too much uncertainty put into the marketplace by this type of thing.

D. Jarvis: I rise to make a few comments about Bill 19. My associates from Richmond-Steveston and Fort Langley-Aldergrove very eloquently put forward a lot of things that they feel are wrong with this bill. I look at it too, and I see that the Consumer Protection Act and the Trade Practice Act are in it, and that the Residential Tenancy Act is very predominant in this bill. I feel as though I've got into a situation where I just cannot let it go by without saying that on the Residential Tenancy Act part of it, specifically the arbitrator and the way he can interpret disputes that occur between a landlord and a tenant, and also the aspect of evictions and how that puts conditions on the landlord more than it does on the tenant -- when the reason for the eviction would probably be, in most cases, the tenant himself. . . . It puts a very questionable position on simply claiming that perhaps there is an unreasonable hardship on the part of the tenant. This in itself could be for many reasons, whether it is disruptive on the part of the tenant, or other use of the premises required by the landlord. . . . What happens is that if the tenant simply states that it's an unreasonable hardship, the arbitrator has a very loose interpretation of that -- or could make a very loose interpretation of it.

Again, we see a sort of imbalance in the act and unfairness in the question of both the landlord -- who I'm speaking for in this situation -- and the tenant. The tenant can say that his eviction is, as I said, disruptive to his interests and a hardship, and therefore raising the rent or removing the tenant from the premises may just be turned around and put aside by the arbitrator. An arbitrator therefore has too much of a free hand to interpret unreasonable hardship. The powers are too open and not in the specific interests of either of the parties involved. As I said, it puts the owners in a very untenable position in terms of their ability to manage their own business, if this is a business. It puts them in an untenable position for managing their own private property. That is probably one of the things of greatest concern here: the fact that it is private property. And now the government has again interfered and interjected and is not giving him the rights he should have in this province. That will lead to abuses; there's no question.

I ask the Attorney General himself: if he had an extra $300,000 or $400,000, would he buy a rental property? Not very likely. I was in the business for 25 years, and I watched it go along, and this is what has happened. The reason we're now in this position of having very few rental properties being built and/or bought by the average individual as a second investment or a development is the fact that there are such abuses as the result of the Residential Tenancy Act that the owner no longer has control of his own property. It would not be in the best interest of a person to go out and buy property for rental at this time, because there's no value to it.

I feel that legislation such as this is making it even harder for tenants themselves to find rental accommodation, because there is very little being built that is of reasonable value that the average tenant could afford. The problem is continual government intervention. As we know, this Residential Tenancy Act was originally brought in by this government some 25 years ago, and it really hasn't improved the landlord-tenant position in this province as far as having rental property available in those fluctuating periods of ups and downs. On that premise, I cannot support this section of Bill 19, and I will vote against it.

K. Krueger: The difficulty that I have and my constituents will have with Bill 19 -- as my colleagues have mentioned, and I don't intend to duplicate their remarks -- will arise specifically out of section 7, section 54(5)(f). The power is granted to an arbitrator to define unreasonable hardship in this subjective way and once again to tilt the scales in the landlord-tenant relationship in favour of tenants. Of course, the ones we are concerned about are those abusive tenants who are a problem to everybody, including other tenants in the same complex. My constituents already tend to find the Residential Tenancy Act very cumbersome, very slanted in

[ Page 7695 ]

favour of tenants, and difficult and costly to deal with. Indeed, I think the government has found it costly to deal with, in that the residential tenancy branch in Kamloops was closed and some of the staff moved to Kelowna. Now my constituents have the difficulty of trying to deal with these matters by long-distance telephone.

I can tell the Attorney General that it infuriates landlords to have to deal with the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act. It makes them wonder why they ever bothered putting their money into housing; it makes them regret that they did; it discourages them from getting involved in any further investments.

We had hoped that when the Residential Tenancy Act was amended, it would be amended for purposes of clarity, simplicity, fairness and restoring the balance between landlords and tenants. I see the Attorney General nodding his head; that's probably what he meant to do. But this particular section is a move in the opposite direction, in our minds, and I believe that's the way our constituents will feel about it. It's important that when we amend legislation like the Residential Tenancy Act, we do it in such a way as to eliminate, not increase, the potential for abuse. This provision will only give one more dodge to those very difficult people who trash residences, who damage other people's property, who create problems for their co-residents as well as for their landlords and, indeed, their families and themselves. It'll only give them another avenue to frustrate their landlords with and to create problems and to, as I say, discourage investment in housing, which people need if they're in a position of having to rent their dwelling places. It will have the effect of drying up the availability of housing in British Columbia. That surely is an unintended effect on the part of the Attorney General and the government, and one that British Columbians will regret.

Once again we see a government that probably has the best possible motives making a move that further discourages investment by adding regulation, red tape and an unbalancing of the scales in one direction rather than a fairness in how legislative provisions are made. These changes will make things worse in the residential marketplace in British Columbia. There's too much room for subjectivity in this term "unreasonable hardship" and in just handing it over to arbitrators. It's just another dodge for abusive people. It expropriates private property ownership rights yet again, and it'll frustrate people very badly.

Noting the hour, I'm going to wrap up my comments, because there will be provision during committee stage to deal with this specifically. But I would respectfully urge the Attorney General to have a second look at these concerns and to take account of them, because we hear them from people all the time. People don't want to invest in housing in British Columbia particularly because of the snarl of red tape that they know they're exposing themselves to. The government knows that this is an issue when people are trying to find someplace to live, particularly very-low-income people.

If we enact this provision, it will ensure that it'll be even more unattractive for investors to involve themselves in the housing market in B.C. It's more red tape. It's more indication that the government doesn't yet understand the difficulties that are created for our constituents, for the public in general and for the province when legislation is enacted which tips the scales in favour of one side of an equation. There are many such equations -- the labour-management spectrum and others. In this case, it's the delicate balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords.

We will be speaking to this provision, obviously, as we go to committee stage on this bill. Not wishing to talk out the clock or to delay this legislation unduly over one major area of concern, we urge the Attorney General to have a second look at this. Hopefully, we can proceed by way of a friendly amendment during committee stage. I'll leave it at that for today.

[5:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the debate is wrapped up. We will be going through each section, and the hon. members will see that many of the concerns they have expressed are ill-founded. They'll realize that during the section-by-section debate in committee stage. That concludes my remarks, and I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 19 approved on division.

Bill 19, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

On vote 26: minister's office, $454,0000 (continued).

G. Plant: I want to raise one or two issues that are specific to my community of Richmond. But before doing that, I want to begin by asking a question about the issue of earthquake-proofing all schools across British Columbia. During the course of these estimates the minister has already talked about capital funding projects. I'm sure he's answered a lot of questions about capital funding projects.

My understanding is that as a general policy the ministry is not spending any money to do what might be called stabilize-only projects; that is, any investment in earthquake-proofing the schools is being made only when a new school is being built or when an existing school is otherwise being renovated. Is that a correct statement?

[2:45]

[ Page 7696 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In general terms, I'd say you've accurately described the process, as far as structural upgrading. There is some non-structural work that the ministry continues to provide grants to school districts and schools for -- for things like bolting bookcases to the wall in libraries and making sure that there isn't injury caused by falling objects that could be secured. But your overall understanding of when seismic upgrading gets done is in general terms accurate.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. Perhaps I could go this next step, then, and ask the minister why that is the general approach. I could put it in context. I'm sure the minister reads the newspapers on these things as much as, if not more than, I do. In some long-established communities in British Columbia there are some schools that have been there for a long time. They're not slated to be renovated, but they are seismically at risk. It seems to me there are at least two reasons why we ought to be concerned about that. The first is that obviously there are school kids and teachers and staff who are in these buildings, and they are buildings that are at risk if there was to be an earthquake. Secondly, I suspect that in many communities in British Columbia, the school gym is the place that the local residents are going to be asked to go to if there is an earthquake. It won't make much sense sending them there if the school gym is the first place to fall down.

I know that the minister has less money to spend on capital projects than there are capital projects available and wanting to be done. I suppose the issue is: why, as a matter of priority, is the ministry not making any investment in the structural side of seismic-only upgrades?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect we will be doing a few questions on this. I'll provide some information and answers, and the member can ask me a follow-up question. First, I was just informed by staff of something which was news to me, and it may also be news to the member. In the most recent major earthquake in an urban centre, the one in Kobe, Japan, the majority of injuries were actually caused by non-structural. . . . So the shift in putting some of the focus there seems to be a wise investment of the resources that we do have. I would say to the member that far from seeking to ignore this issue. . . . You can't ignore it. We live on earthquake faults here in British Columbia. Not so much in my part of the province as in yours, hon. member, but even in Prince George we have the occasional quake. It is a concern to all of us who send our children to a public facility. Far from trying to ignore it, we are looking at approaching it with a structured plan to deal with the issue.

I would ask the member to consider that we have approximately $40 billion worth of public buildings in the province that could or might need some sort of structural upgrading for earthquake preparedness. No government can simply say: "This is the year we are going to deal with earthquake preparedness." You have to approach it over time and figure out which pieces to take first.

Starting back in 1991, the goal of this ministry has been to do a thorough assessment of what there is and to then do structural audits -- by 1994, we thought we had most of that in place -- to start dealing with the issues one at a time. The member is right that the policy is that we'll try to get to the earthquake structural upgrade in one of three areas: first, any new building will obviously meet current standards; second, any addition or renovation to an existing building will bring it up to current standards; and third, we're going to continue to seek more cost-effective ways of upgrading the rest. Far from doing nothing, hon. member, the investment in new buildings since 1991 -- this is just renovation and upgrading -- has been $750 million. There has been a significant investment in this. I surely recognize the concerns of parents who are sending their children to school in older buildings. We will continue to work hard to find cost-effective solutions to deal with seismic upgrading.

G. Plant: I appreciate the information that the minister has given. I come to this subject partly from my perspective as the Attorney General critic. Somewhere in the Attorney General ministry. . . . Their language is the provincial emergency program, which is the place where a lot of this would start in the event of a disaster. I think the additional element that I would want to have in the minister's explanation of the efforts that have been made is the recognition that the need for capital spending for seismic upgrades may be -- and I can't necessarily say this specifically -- as urgent a need, in some districts, schools or places, as the need for a new, renovated or upgraded school.

It is not to make the minister's job any less complicated -- in fact, it's probably going to achieve the opposite -- but it seems to me that to the extent that there is or is not a policy which, in effect, automatically, if not arbitrarily, consigns seismic upgrade projects to the bottom of the list in terms of capital or structural projects, that may not be smart public policy. I know that my colleague for Vancouver-Quilchena will have one or two questions on this, but perhaps by way of encouraging the minister to consider the need to give a slightly different priority to the seismic upgrade projects, I would invite the minister to comment on that suggestion.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The priorities that we've unrolled in this year's capital plan, I believe, were the right ones for children in British Columbia schools: to deal with the backlog of kids that are spending far too much of their lives in temporary or portable facilities and, as much as possible, provide permanent facilities and seek to reduce the number of portable facilities; second, to do all we can to replace older buildings and renovate ones that are in clear need of repair, and when we do that, to deal with the seismic issues.

I would say that the record is pretty good on this: an investment of around $120 million a year on projects like this every year for the last six years. So there has been a significant amount of investment in it.

We are also working hard on two other areas, one I've mentioned, which is the non-structural upgrading. That seems to be, from what some of the experts tell me, a source of greater personal injury potential than the structural component of it. Then the second element is to work with the Attorney General and others to look at what seismic upgrading goals should be. I mean, there are a variety of goals you might obtain. If you're aiming for no structural damage to the building, it's a hugely different cost than if you say, simply. . . . You might say: "Well, no damage to lives, but the building may sustain significant loss." That is another issue that's been looked at cross-government, hon. member, to see if the upgrading standards are something that we should address and, in that way, address this huge $40 billion backlog more expeditiously.

C. Hansen: My understanding is that in about 1993 -- I may have my year wrong -- the criteria for evaluating capital construction projects were changed in the province. Specifically, the stand-alone seismic work was taken out of the criteria in evaluation. I'd like to ask the minister why that was taken out.

[ Page 7697 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is close to accuracy. It was in 1994, staff inform me, that the capital plan said: "Look, we're going to address seismic upgrading as part of renovations to structures, not as stand-alone projects." It was done for the reasons that I've just been talking about with your colleague from Richmond.

C. Hansen: In the case of engineering studies that show there is a danger to lives in the event of a moderate earthquake, would the minister feel that it warranted priority when it came to capital construction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the renovation of the building is part of that priority and remains a priority for the school district, then I assume it would be near the top of their list, hon. member.

C. Hansen: I'm not talking about renovation; I'm talking about a building that does not need renovation. I'm specifically talking about Kerrisdale Elementary School in my riding. Prior to the change of criteria, that particular school ranked fifteenth on the capital priority list in British Columbia. After the criteria were changed, it was bumped down to 197th. It doesn't need renovation. We don't need a new school. All they need is to bring some work into that school so the bloody thing's not going to fall down if there's a 5.2 earthquake in this province. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just been informed by staff that this project isn't in the capital plan that was submitted by the school district in Vancouver.

[3:00]

C. Hansen: That reconstruction was in every single capital plan that came forward from the Vancouver school board in, I think it was, about 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

After that, the criterion was changed to pull the seismic work out. Every year that the capital plan got submitted, the Ministry of Education crossed out that project. So finally, until such time as the criterion is changed, they don't feel that it's worthwhile putting it in there, because they know it's just going to get crossed out again this year.

I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to stand here today and say that this kind. . . . The engineers have said the school is gravely in need of seismic upgrading. It doesn't need renovation. It doesn't need a new school. But is the minister prepared to stand here today and say that the risk to the children in that school is not a priority for him or his ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The safety of children that are studying in our schools is always a priority for this minister and this ministry. The way we are approaching the issue of seismic upgrading around safety is one that we've just explored with your colleague from Richmond. I think I've been fairly comprehensive in how we intend to deal with it. We have a substantial number of public buildings, including the structure that the member's referring to, that do need some renovation. It will take a while to get to all these. I've explained the process by which this ministry attempts to do that: in conjunction with and as part of larger capital plans.

C. Hansen: I would like the minister to explain why a school that is in danger of severe damage in the case of a moderate earthquake is not as much a priority as those schools that require renovation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the last few years some seven renovation and seismic upgrading projects have been done in school district 39, including Sir Charles Tupper Secondary, Sir Richard McBride Elementary, Lord Selkirk Elementary, Lord Roberts Elementary, Hastings Elementary, Shaughnessy Elementary and Tecumseh Elementary School. All of these works are ongoing.

I've explained to the member how we are dealing with both the renovation and seismic at the same time. Staff are surprised to hear there's no renovation of any kind required at Kerrisdale. The last time this project was on the school district's list, I think it was ranked No. 20.

There is a large number of projects around the province. We have a substantial budget for capital this year. We've spent $750 million since 1991-92 on renovation projects that also address seismic upgrading. This is an issue of importance to us, and we'll continue to address it.

C. Hansen: So what I hear the minister saying is that they're going to have to find some excuse to do some renovation work, which probably is not necessarily needed, in order to get the desperately needed seismic work done. My question for the minister is: why is it that the seismic upgrading isn't as high a priority as renovation work?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is not less important than renovation of other sorts. But there are a number of renovations that need to be done to bring older buildings up to current codes -- schools in Vancouver and elsewhere, schools that have served kids for a long time. Seismic is one of them; mechanical is another. There's a huge range of issues that need to get dealt with. We're not talking just about rolling down new linoleum. We're looking at structural elements that affect a variety of ways in which a building can serve kids now and into the future. Seismic upgrading is one part of what needs to get done, and that is why it is considered in conjunction with other aspects of ensuring that we're extending the usable life of schools in Vancouver and elsewhere in the province.

C. Hansen: I find it astounding, though, that the only time you can get seismic work done on a school is when other renovation work is being done. If you have a situation where the seismic standards of the school are at a critical point, why would that not be a higher priority than the linoleum or the new doors, or whatever it is? Right now, if the Vancouver school board puts Kerrisdale Elementary school onto their capital list, it will get scratched off. And it has nothing to do with whether that school needs renovating. The school is unsafe. Why is the safety of the school not as high a priority as other renovations that might come forward? Would the minister consider bringing that back into the criteria list so that it can be looked at, so that the safety of children in the event of an earthquake is considered along with all of the other factors that go into evaluating whether capital money should be put into a school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Frankly, I think we've canvassed this issue. I've answered the question several times about why we do things the way we are to deal with the $40 billion worth of public buildings. Safety of children is a prime concern that drives a variety of things that we do, both in capital and in operating budgets within this ministry. Capital needs arise. As I say, we spent $750 million on renovations and replacements of schools -- very often older schools where seismic upgrading is needed. We'll continue to show that sort of commitment.

The Chair: Perhaps the member would like to canvass a different subject matter.

[ Page 7698 ]

C. Hansen: No. Actually, I'll turn it back over to my colleague in a second. But we're talking about parts of a school that go back to 1908. I find it quite disappointing that the minister would not consider the safety of our children a higher priority than he obviously does today. But certainly this is an issue that we will raise again and again until some changes are made.

K. Krueger: Just briefly continuing in the vein that my colleagues were speaking on, the major capital project that's going ahead in Kamloops right now -- replacement of the old wing of Lloyd George school. . . . It was a matter of some debate as to whether or not the old school was safe. Kamloops -- and Kamloops-North Thompson, the whole district -- is grateful that that capital project is going ahead. When the backhoe came in to knock down the old school, it was astounding how easily the walls fell. One thinks about the fate of little children if they had been in that old stone building if a seismic upheaval occurred. It would have been a horrible thing. I'd like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in urging the minister to have a second look at the prioritization policy.

Kamloops and the Kamloops-Thompson school district are also grateful for the extension of funding to the McQueen Lake Environmental Education Centre, which is a facility of value to the entire province. Many people throughout the province have benefited from that. It's a facility that has been developed through a lot of private as well as public contributions. It's run largely through the voluntary efforts of teachers and staff and volunteers throughout the school district. One unfortunate aspect of the ongoing operation is that year after year people have to devote a great deal of time and energy attempting to ensure that funding will be extended for one more year. Having already expressed gratitude for the fact that the funding was extended for another year, I'd like to ask the minister if we can look for some long-term certainty in the continuing funding of that facility, recognizing that the operational funding that is allowed is only a tiny percentage of what the overall facility contributes to the province as a whole?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I surely do recognize the value of this centre, although, slightly contrary to what the member says, I think that the great majority of children who have benefited from the centre have been from the school district itself. There have been some from other places, but the great majority have surely been from the school district itself.

There are three such centres in the province; there are 60 school boards. I met with the board recently to discuss this and a variety of other issues. Like the member, they very much liked the Lloyd George expansion and some of the other initiatives we've been able to take. I told them that I recognized their concern about the year-to-year process, but at this point I did not have a clear way of going beyond the year-to-year way in which it had been funded, since, as I said, there are only three such operations in the district. It's not part of the block grant that goes out there. We've tried as much as possible, as the member knows, to level the playing field between and among districts through the use of the funding formula.

K. Krueger: Is it possible that some shared funding could be negotiated with the Environment and Forests ministries? Each of them presumably benefits from the ongoing education that occurs there, not only for students of the school district but also for educators themselves who travel to McQueen from all over the province. Our Education critic, in fact, spent a couple of summers working at McQueen early in her career as an educator. It's a site that has benefited educators from all over the province, and that's actually who I was referring to, rather than students, necessarily -- although I'm sure the school district itself would welcome the opportunity to share the facility with students from other districts as well. So the question then is: is there any negotiation with other ministries to participate in that funding in order that it could be more long term?

Hon. P. Ramsey: McQueen does get funding from a variety of other sources, both community-based. . . . I don't remember which fraternal organizations are involved in assisting with funding. I had thought that the school board had told me that it also had contributions -- either in kind or in cash, from other ministries and from private businesses as well -- to keep the operation running. I don't know whether the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment contribute directly or in kind, which they may well do.

The other thing that it would be well for the school district to look at is to see if arrangements could be made with neighbouring districts for contributions for the use of the centre. As the member says, it is a valuable resource. It is one that could be made available without too much difficulty to some children from some neighbouring districts, and one would hope there'd be some opportunity for a sharing of costs more widely.

K. Krueger: I thank the minister. I will leave that subject with the wrap-up comment that clearly it would be in everyone's best interests if people's energy and resources weren't diverted to the continual search for the renewal of funding year by year. We hope that the minister will confer with his cabinet colleagues. I think the minister and I have been saying the same thing as to the support coming from a very wide base, and we're confident that it will continue. But there's a certain level of core operating funding that's necessary in order to preserve the facility, which, if it were ever lost, would be a very dramatic loss to the province as a whole. It's probably irreplaceable, considering current and future budget constraints that are likely.

I'd like to turn briefly to the issue of school district amalgamation and the effect on the community of Clearwater of the amalgamation of the North Thompson and Kamloops school districts to form the Kamloops-Thompson school district. This was a foreseen event. People in Clearwater, in the North Thompson school district, were invited to have input about the amalgamation before it happened. They were given a deadline to provide their written input by. People were working hard to prepare submissions, and then the announcement was made prior to the deadline. There are very hard feelings in Clearwater about that.

A number of things have flowed from the amalgamation. Certainly everyone understood that the intent was to save operational costs, but some strange anomalies have resulted, particularly from the amalgamation of the two CUPE agreements. We have CUPE members from Kamloops driving all the way to Clearwater, which is a 90-minute drive in the best of conditions, to perform simple tasks that had been performed for decades by people from Clearwater -- tasks such as painting, installation of posts and routine maintenance work. This is actually happening.

One example that was quoted to me -- and the only dispute seems to be in the numbers involved. . . . Either three or four one-ton trucks pulling equipment and occupied by six or eight CUPE members drove all the way to Clearwater to

[ Page 7699 ]

perform a number of routine tasks -- mainly comprised of putting in seven posts, I'm told. There were some other things done as well. They didn't get the work done in one day, so they drove back to Kamloops and came back the next day to finish it.

[3:15]

This infuriates people in Clearwater, because the small community relied, for a part of its economic base, on the jobs that were generated by its school district. People can well understand efficiencies and giving up duplicate positions -- administrative positions and so on. But it has been a loss to that community to give up even those administrative jobs, and it really makes people bridle to see work like that lost to employees from Kamloops, particularly with the wasted manpower and wasted resources of bringing people and machinery all the way from Kamloops.

I have written to the school board and asked that the school board, in their negotiations, try to ensure that some form of local measures agreement is included so that that type of waste does not occur in future. I would appreciate the minister's point of view and his advice -- if he's willing to reinforce that recommendation for me.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think that the point you have made to the school district is entirely appropriate. I hope they will look hard at that as they both do their negotiations with the support staff and look at how they organize their general operations. Amalgamation does not necessarily mean the centralization of all functions. Even in a very large district such as Prince George, which wasn't amalgamated, there are people who are actually stationed in the some of the smaller communities served by the Prince George district. While there clearly is travel from Prince George to some of the outlying areas, there are some tasks that are performed in a school-based way. I hope that the district will be cognizant of that.

There have been significant savings in Kamloops and elsewhere in administration and other centralized service areas from amalgamation, but there's no doubt that at times it has created some dislocations, as the member has described. I think, again, that your representation to the board is entirely appropriate.

K. Krueger: One of the issues, which I am advised by the school board and others plays into this scenario, is the requirement of TQs or trade qualification certificates for individuals performing work on schools. Again, that certainly makes sense to the people of Clearwater and to me for the types of activities we were discussing earlier, such as seismic upgrades and so on. But when we consider simple tasks, such as the ones I was describing earlier -- maintenance activities, painting, putting in posts, working on landscaping, those sorts of things -- would the minister agree that it is not necessarily wise to require a TQ for each individual who performs such activities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not going to presume to tell the school district how to organize its operations at that level of detail. Clearly it has to find ways of delivering a high-quality service -- the member has talked about the necessity of having certified tradespeople to do that sort of work -- as well as doing the perhaps less qualified work in cost-efficient ways. That task remains with the board.

K. Krueger: Certainly that's what local government is about. Yet I'm sure the minister values every educational dollar that's spent in the province and doesn't want to see any of it spent unwisely. It simply doesn't make sense to require those who are going to paint a classroom to be qualified to paint a steel highway bridge, which is the sort of absurdity that's being quoted to me. I wish to ask the minister if he can find the time to have a look at the assurances that the previous Minister of Education -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- gave me when we discussed, in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act of 1996, the mechanics of consolidating the school districts. These very points were raised -- that this is going to very much hurt a small community. The number of jobs that will be lost will have a huge ripple effect, all out of relation to what that number of jobs would mean to a city like Kamloops -- or, of course, to a city like Vancouver. The minister named the communities all up the North Thompson Valley, impressing me with his geographical knowledge, and promised that he would ensure -- that this government would ensure -- that those small communities didn't suffer economically in ways that were unnecessary.

The reason I ask the minister to please have a look at the record on this is that the people of Clearwater are looking to us to deliver on that promise. Incidentally, Clearwater is one of the few areas of my constituency where I lost the last election. People are counting on this government to keep its word in that area, and I've assured them that I'll bring these promises to the minister's attention.

A final question with regard to this school district amalgamation. What accountability is required of school districts to show what the actual cost savings have been, if any, for amalgamation? Is there a document that could be made available to me? Is the school district actually required to publish an ongoing report to the ministry showing what the savings, if any, have been with amalgamation? I understand that the Premier has conceded that overall amalgamation didn't save money. Perhaps the minister could give us his views on that.

I see him shaking his head. It's a two-part question. Has there been a savings overall? And what accountability is expected of school districts with regard to this issue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First on the impact on smaller communities, whether it be Clearwater or Blue River or others. I will ask the staff to review the record and see what we can ascertain. We'll do some follow-up with you as well.

As for savings and amalgamation, one of the clearest measures, of course, is that we require school districts to stay within the administrative cap that they've been given. Those administrative caps for amalgamated districts have decreased from two stand-alone. . . . They've been considerably shrunk over the years. We've asked some non-amalgamated districts to find ways of squeezing that cap as well. So there are some clear measures of savings there.

Obviously there are local concerns at times, if you're going to reduce the number of senior positions. At times you have one-time costs of severance and pay-out that create some public concern about whether there are true savings. But over the long term, we have started to build systems in the amalgamated districts that do function as one district and have saved the taxpayer money in areas outside of the classroom.

B. Barisoff: Further along the lines of amalgamated school districts, yes, there probably were some savings. In my area we had, I think, a couple of districts that got amalgamated. Then if you take the Penticton one that got amalgamated. . . . Part of Penticton is with mine, too, so there's three in the riding. I think the minister was sent a letter indicating

[ Page 7700 ]

the fact that in Keremeos they shut down the school district office through amalgamation and put it together with the one in Oliver. The concern I have is that when B.C. Assessment came along, they said that because the school district office was closed in Keremeos, it was now being assessed as non-school use. I'm just wondering whether the minister is going to fund the district for that extra cost or whether he'd look into that and see what happens.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you for telling me about this concern. I'm unaware of it. I'll have officials investigate and talk to you as well as to myself about whether there are some interventions that could be made. I guess the other question I'd have -- and maybe the member knows; I don't -- is: why aren't they selling it?

B. Barisoff: I think they're actually in the process of looking at the possibility of selling it. I understand that the highway patrol is interested in purchasing it. Their concern is also with the fact that they were looking at it as a storefront school and a number of other things they could use it for, when all of a sudden B.C. Assessment turns around and says: "It's non-school use, and we're going to assess you as such." I'm sorry I didn't bring the letter with me, but I do have the letter that was sent to the minister. If you check with the school district, I'm sure it must be on file somewhere because they did send it to the minister.

Carrying along with amalgamated school districts -- I think I brought this issue up last year with the minister -- I'm wondering whether the level of funding in the special ed department will be maintained and stay the same for the amalgamated school districts.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, to go back to the Assessment Authority: I assume that if the board feels the evaluation of the property is wrong, or if the property is going to be used as a school in the future, they have sought to appeal that assessment, which they have every right to do. If they're showing a case that says this is going to be a long-term education use, they may have a case. Staff advise me that this issue, at least in memory, has come up in a handful of other cases, so maybe there is some solution here. We'll look into it and see, hon. member.

As for amalgamation, the amalgamation of school districts did not affect the way in which the ministry funds kids who have special education needs. As the member knows, there are a variety of categories for special education, and the school districts receive a sort of operating part of special education grants based on those children who actually require special education. There has been an amalgamation of core -- I guess I'd call it -- support services for the in-classroom work of special education, and indeed those grants have been reduced as amalgamation take place.

B. Barisoff: Then am I to assume, by what you're saying, that the rural districts or the amalgamated districts will actually have less money and less service for the special ed students in those particular areas?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, that's not what I said nor what I meant. If there's a high-need special education kid in Keremeos, the school district will receive the same sort of grant as if that child was enrolled in Kamloops or Vancouver.

B. Barisoff: I will definitely follow that up with the school districts and with the parent groups, which are feeling that they are getting less service since the districts have been amalgamated. I don't think the minister's comments -- that they're getting the same as in the metro area or wherever -- are good enough for the rural part of British Columbia. We feel very strongly that numbers dictate things that can be done in the metro areas, whereas that same avenue doesn't exist for the rural part of British Columbia. They're starting to see that already in the new initiative that the minister has put out in the rural areas -- the K-to-3 initiative. I must say, it's a good initiative. But where you have hard numbers -- in every talk that I've had with the districts in the rural areas of my riding -- they're finding that it's going to be an imposition on what's going to take place. It will probably create a lot more split classes. Rural B.C. doesn't get the same, and I'm afraid that the amalgamation process has probably left a lot of rural school districts in a worse situation than they were in before they were amalgamated. That's my question to the minister: will the rural school districts be in the same position as they were prior to amalgamation in how they can fund their special needs children?

[3:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought we were dealing with amalgamation in a relatively non-partisan way until the last comments.

Back in '95-96, when amalgamation was being considered, all sides of the House agreed that this was a way to save a significant portion of tax dollars spent on education without impacting classroom delivery. I think, hon. member, it was your side of the House that proposed that we go even lower than the number of districts we now have in the province. I believe that we have, in broad terms, achieved those goals. I said to the school trustees: "I have no further amalgamations planned around British Columbia; it's time to solidify and consolidate the work that has been done to date." On the whole, I think it has achieved its purposes. As I said to your colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson, there are obviously some concerns, and we've been working through those.

As for special education, let me, again, restate what I said earlier: we attempt to fund the needs of students through the special education formula, and that formula recognizes the needs of the child. So, compared to any other district in the province, there has been no reduction in how that works for amalgamated districts. I further say to the member that the funding formula, which allocates $3.5 billion to the school districts, seeks to do so based on a large number of factors. Clearly the number of children and their needs are primary, but there are lots of other factors that go into it. For example, while we do have a provincial funding average of $5,849 per student in British Columbia for 1998-99, for Boundary, the district that we're discussing, the per-student funding is a touch over $7,000 a child. Frankly, I don't think that's because the children in Boundary have higher levels of special education needs or other things. It is a recognition in the formula of some of the precise factors that the member is talking about: distance, small numbers, communities that at times need to bring in people to make sure that kids are getting the services that they require.

B. Barisoff: Being a longtime trustee, I know it has an impact, and the impact is on students. And yes, as the minister indicated, the amalgamation process probably did save some of the money that was indicated. But I think there was a commitment made to school districts that special needs pupils would not be impacted adversely. And, lo and behold, they have been.

[ Page 7701 ]

But I'll move on from that, because I think that however many times I ask that question, we'll get back to the same thing that happened the other day when I asked a question about funding for the current contract. I never did get an answer then and probably won't get an answer now, but I just want to move on to a couple more local things.

One is in district 53 of the Boundary area: the big white community school. . . . The minister has been sent a letter on this also. This is a situation where a lot of the students arrive after the date of September 30. They want to have a community school in that ski-hill area, and it seems that for whatever reason, they can't because of the arbitrary cutoff of September 30. When these students are arriving -- probably for the ski season in October -- and they've opened up the school, they don't seem to get funded. They must be coming from somewhere, but they're not coming from the Boundary area, so they're the ones that are suffering. I'm wondering whether the minister can address this and create some kind of. . . . I'm not asking for new funding; all I'm asking for is funding that would adhere to what they need.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff met with the board within the last couple of weeks. This is one of the issues that was discussed with the board at that time. The Ministry of Education asked the board to provide some more details on what they were proposing and the delivery systems that they were proposing -- which might include the electronic delivery of courses -- as a way of helping to solve this and to keep kids integrated with ongoing studies in the districts they come from. This is an issue that the ministry has acknowledged as real and one that we want to work with the district on. I don't have a solution to propose to the member in this chamber.

B. Barisoff: I guess the letter that I got. . . . I just got it the other day. But I did talk to the trustees at the conference, and at that point in time they didn't have any answers. I guess they're very concerned, because last year it ended up costing the district money. They want to provide this service. . . . I don't know how many there are, to tell you the truth. Let me just look through here and see. It's a letter dated September 2, 1997, and I just can't find where it says the number of students. But they do arrive there. If they were driving into Kelowna, I would venture to say that some of them probably come out of the Kelowna school district. It is a hardship on the small school district of Boundary, and I'm just hoping that the minister will address this issue.

Carrying on further, I just want to know whether there is any kind of early retirement package in this latest agreement with the teachers and what that amount is on a per-teacher basis.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there is. We did canvass this a fair bit last week. I'll say only this: it is really a combination of early retirement and career transition planning for teachers. It is designed to be a cost-neutral plan in its effect on district and ministry expenditures.

B. Barisoff: What the minister is saying. . . . I guess I'll rephrase the question a little bit. Is there any kind of pay-out to teachers as an incentive to retire? I know that in the district that I come from, we actually had an early retirement incentive. I'm just wondering whether there is any actual dollar figure as an incentive for early retirement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll start with the end. I think one of the things you're asking is: is there double-dipping? Is that one of the questions? Can you do this and that? The answer is no. Okay? So if you're going to avail yourself of this plan as a teacher, you can't avail yourself of another one.

As far as a cash pay-out to teachers, that depends on the plan that's actually put into place and the quantifiable savings to the district.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's my concern. You must have the quantifiable savings if you have. . . . If a teacher is retiring, what is that quantifiable savings on a per-teacher basis?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Since the member has served as a trustee, I think he understands where a potential savings would come from: between the salary and benefits cost of a teacher at the top of the grid who's retiring and the replacement teacher who, on average in the province, would probably be costing the district around $15,000 a year less. That's a rough ballpark figure.

What we're doing with this plan is saying that that will be worked out district by district. If that gap is wider, then there may be some greater benefits; if it's less, there may be smaller ones. The maximum period for which you can accrue savings and spend it here is two years. This is a framework which will be worked out district by district.

If the member has this ongoing interest in benefit plans for teachers, I'd be pleased to have staff brief him in detail someplace other than in this chamber.

B. Barisoff: That's actually pretty good quick figuring, because we had a $20,000 figure.

My concern still lies in the fact that. . . . If you happen to be a senior math teacher -- and they're not going to find somebody coming out of university that's going to teach senior math -- are you going to be penalized because they would have to bring in somebody who's been in the system longer and who is, of course, coming in at a higher scale? Or is there going to be a set figure, whether it be $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000?

I'm wondering if what the minister is indicating is going to vary from district to district. I'm just thinking of the teacher leaving and the teacher coming in. It should be pretty close to standard throughout the province. I'm still wondering, on a per-teacher basis, what kinds of benefits they could expect to see.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me allay the member's fears. The senior math person who's replaced by somebody who's one step lower in the grid wouldn't necessarily receive a payment of only two thousand bucks, or whatever it is. This would be done on an across-district basis, and therefore you would have a wider pool of teachers retiring and new teachers coming in that you could calculate the difference on. As I said earlier, staff estimate that across the province that savings is around $15,000 a year. If you can roll up a maximum of two years, then the maximum benefit for teachers would be in the range of $30,000. But this is going to be done district by district.

The goal here is a cost-neutral plan; that's the premise of the entire plan. What we are doing is a significant initiative to renew the teaching force and allow teachers who are even younger than 55 to do some career transition planning and, at the same time, not impose an additional cost on the system.

B. Barisoff: Being a trustee who has used this in my district for a number of years, I'm not disagreeing with what

[ Page 7702 ]

the minister's saying. I'm still getting back to the same question. You were indicating that there's a possible two-year. . . . Let's say, for example, that the member for Okanagan-Vernon is a school teacher retiring this year, at the end of her career. She has her 30 or 35 years in, and somebody coming out of UBC or UVic -- or one of the universities -- is replacing her. What kind of dollar value will she be getting to leave for retirement? Whether you want to call it early retirement, retirement or whatever, what kind of incentive are you giving to have each person leave, in dollars-and-cents figures, on a per-teacher basis?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say again: it's not based on the individual teacher; it's based across the district. I'm astounded to hear that the member for Okanagan-Vernon has been teaching for 35 years.

A Voice: Looks damn good, doesn't she?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That one I'm not going to respond to.

Look, it's a way of cutting to the chase. Why don't you just read the provisions? I mean, it's a public document. I'm quite willing to have staff brief you on it thoroughly. There's nothing very mysterious here. "The actual difference in salary costs between teachers participating in this program and new teachers hired to replace those participants will be used to fund the early retirement and career-transition plan." So we're saying very clearly that it's going to be zero costs to boards. "The maximum incentive amount to be paid to participants in the first year of the program shall be the actual average difference in salary costs between teachers participating in this program and new teachers hired to replace those teachers" -- district by district by district. "The maximum incentive amount to be paid to participants in the second year of the program shall be the actual average difference in salary costs between teachers participating in this program and new teachers hired to replace those teachers, less the average cost of a teacher salary increment." It's up a grid, and that's the total sum that gets paid: two years.

[3:45]

B. Barisoff: I know how the system works, and I guess I'm still trying to get at. . . . If a person were to leave, what kind of early retirement incentive are you giving a teacher? You know, you can give me a ballpark figure. I know you said $15,000. Is it from $15,000 to $20,000? Is the incentive for a teacher to leave on early retirement or any kind of retirement. . . ? Let's say, for argument's sake, it's between $15,000 and $20,000. Will that cost be funded by the ministry? I know how the system works. They should be able to pick it up in the carry-forward, but that will be funded in the funding formula. So the maximum. . . . To be fair to people, would we be looking at, say, from $15,000 to $20,000 as a maximum pay-out that any individual teacher would get?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, the principles are there. We've read them, and I think we both understand them. The ministry estimates that the average pay-out would be $15,000 per year, so you're looking at an average of around $28,000 to $30,000. Yes, there'll be some instances where it's more and some that are going to be less. The average is around $28,000 to $30,000.

B. Barisoff: Now I'm starting to see. So an individual teacher, then, actually could get closer to $28,000 to $30,000. . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two years of the savings, yeah.

B. Barisoff: . . .because they get two years of the savings.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Of the savings, yes.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, hon. Chair. Were you talking to me or were you talking to the minister, or were you talking to both of us?

The Chair: I was talking to all members.

B. Barisoff: Especially me. Thank you, hon. Chair, and through the Chair to the minister: I thank you, because I think that now I've finally got the understanding that it's actually a two-year. So an individual teacher could see somewhere between $28,000 and $30,000 on average for an early retirement incentive to leave. Are there any added things that go with that, like years of service that are added onto their pensions or anything like that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I knew we should have done the briefing first, and then we could have really focused in on the issues.

Look, the overall goal is to say there's a real savings to the system by having a teacher retire early. We're saying that we should be funding the cost of early retirement incentives for teachers by two years' worth of those savings. There will be savings in the longer term, but we're saying that that's the amount that will be accrued and put into this initiative in the first two years. Yes, there are lots of other factors that go into it, and I'd be glad to have the member briefed on it, because this is a matter of considerable technical detail.

B. Barisoff: Actually, I would have liked a briefing on that, because after you spend as much time as I have as a trustee, you kind of want to know. . . . My other question would be: where is the money actually going to come from? Which pool of money will these early retirement incentives come from?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again: it's done district by district. It's cost-neutral within those districts. It is funded at the district level.

B. Barisoff: This has nothing to do with pension surpluses?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

B. Barisoff: I think I've probably canvassed this far enough to understand what the early incentives and early retirement costs would be to a particular district on a two-year basis. So with that, I'll pass it on to my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: I did a survey of the school districts about a month ago. I just want to share with the minister some of the trustees' comments on how they view education in British Columbia. A comment from school district 63, Saanich:

"We are living hand-to-mouth on a year-to-year system that precludes any long-range strategic planning. We are also being forced to try and develop non-government sources of revenue through contracting with the private sector. Despite reports to the contrary, our district will be faced with making a minimum of $200,000 in further cuts to programs just to maintain the status quo. There is no opportunity to restore cuts made over the last seven years.. . . "

[ Page 7703 ]

Here's another one from school district 59, Peace River South: "Teachers' contracts need to be overhauled and become far more reflective of the need for flexibility, the information age and professionalism. We are dominated by collective agreements, and we do not have the administrative levels or funds to address issues of quality or accountability." From school district 64: "The district is bankrupt." From school district 79, Cowichan Valley: "There has been a significant loss of faith between school districts and the Ministry of Education: broken promises, unfulfilled headlines, etc."

These are the kinds of comments you get if you take the time to solicit them from the people who actually do the work in the communities. The minister will stand up and say: "Well, the Premier's agreement, the agreement-in-committee, the brokered deal between the Premier and the BCTF executive will solve all of those problems." In fact, it will solve none of those problems. Fortunately, the teachers who will be voting very soon on acceptance or rejection of this agreement, despite the fact that they've had a fair bit of pressure to accept it. . . . Some of them are starting to come out, as we see in the media today, to let the rest of the BCTF members who aren't so close to the government's pulse really know what it means. They have an ad in the Surrey paper from the Surrey Teachers Association. It says: "Attention BCTF Members. To our teacher colleagues living in Surrey: ten good reasons to vote no on the agreement-in-committee."

What I'd like to do, hon. Chair, is go over some of these reasons, and I'll abbreviate some of them to save time, because they are exactly what I've been telling the minister over the last week. I think it's appropriate and important to see that this questioning doesn't come just from this member, nor does it come only from the school board trustees, who were completely left out of the agreement and didn't have any idea about what it was until they were told an hour before the media release. But this is from the teachers. Let's see what they say: "Reason 1: the language is unclear. This deal is a work in progress." Imagine that. "School boards [will] be able to opt out of implementing the class size and caseload language if they lack funding or facilities."

"Reason 2: the staffing ratios for non-enrolling teachers are based on money available, not on student need. A provincial average was arrived at, in many cases using inaccurate information. . . ." We've talked about that; that's the 1530 which all these decisions were based on. We looked at the numbers and found that the numbers, in some cases, were absolutely ridiculous.

"Reason 3: the services provided by other non-enrolling teachers, not mentioned in the agreement, are threatened. Some school boards are already threatening to lay off teachers who are not protected."

"Reason 4: the kindergarten-grade 3 class memorandum expires in three years." It would have been interesting for them to know, as we all know, that there isn't even any funding after year 1, nor is the money in the Education estimates that we're doing. The minister and the government haven't even put in the promised $25 million this year. That's not even in the blue books that we've been spending all this time looking at.

"Reason 5: it is not a fair salary increase." Again, it is not following the rules of the usual kind of bargaining that is done. "If we accept this deal, we will have received an increase of 4 percent over six years."

"Reason 6: teachers are buying back previously lost jobs. If the school system had been adequately funded, the NDP would not be talking about the restoration of teachers."

"Reason 7: it's a three-year deal. Teachers would have to wait another three years for improvements in their working lives."

"Reason 8: the BCTF bargaining team didn't support the deal." The people who the BCTF sent out to do the bargaining on their behalf -- who they paid for; who had, for all that time, gone to the table and bargained on their behalf -- did not accept the deal. That is pointed out in this ad. "Experienced bargainers throughout the province have serious concerns about the language" -- again, something we discussed in here at length. It's to the point that some of the serious bargainers I talked to thought this agreement should have been written in crayon. That was about the level of the language for a bargaining document.

"Reason 9: critical resources are not part of the agreement. The NDP has tried to bribe us by promising 1,000 new classrooms. The promise of facilities must be guaranteed on the agreement."

"Reason 10: it undercuts the public sector. Other unions are currently bargaining; some are taking strike votes. Let's work together to get a good deal. Let's not undercut their negotiations."

Then, hon. Chair, do you know what it says at the bottom of this ad? It says: "Fear and intimidation shouldn't be a reason for accepting this deal." That is a very serious statement.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

A. Sanders: "Fear and intimidation shouldn't be a reason for accepting this deal. Vote no." You know, this is an ad from the teachers in Surrey. This is an ad supported by questionnaires written by the school trustees -- school trustees on one hand; teachers on another. This is one of the biggest school districts in the entire province, and they have serious concerns. And you know what? Their concerns about the Premier's agreement are everything I talked about last week. Every single one of their ten reasons is what we talked about as to why this agreement should go in the dumpster. I'd like the minister to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I said very clearly last week, during very extensive canvassing of this agreement-in-committee, that I fully expected that there would some teachers who opposed this agreement and that there would be some trustees who opposed this agreement. That was part of the ratification process, and I imagined that we'd hear voices on both sides of it, as we are indeed hearing. At the end of the day, I think the significant investment in new teachers and improved teaching environments for our students will lead both teachers and trustees to ratify this deal.

A. Sanders: If you truly believe that, you would take this so-called agreement back to the trustees and the teachers, and you would let them make their own deal with $150 million on the table. You would show some kind of proof that the money is even there, or that it is going to be put in in the first year, or that there's even going to be any money after year 1. We have no proof of any of those allegations, and that is shameful.

Just a couple of questions, and then I'm going to let my colleague take over. I just want to briefly touch on the IRP for

[ Page 7704 ]

drama, dance, music and the visual arts and ask the minister a couple of questions about the fine arts IRP. First of all, when will this IRP be distributed across the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It should be ready for distribution in the next week or two.

A. Sanders: What was the cost of this IRP?

Hon. P. Ramsey: On average, an IRP costs around $200,000. Staff don't have a specific figure for this specific IRP.

A. Sanders: Was $200,000 the cost of this particular IRP?

[4:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I just said I didn't know the cost of this particular IRP.

A. Sanders: I would suggest to the minister that it was well in excess of $200,000 -- probably quite well in excess of that. I'm sure the minister has that figure available. Would the minister please bring that figure back to this House?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be glad to provide it.

A. Sanders: Why was this document withheld and only released after about 200 requests were made and after the critic asked the ministry staff about the IRP?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the ministry staff told you why. To put it in a nutshell, earlier this year the Premier asked me to review the implementation of the curriculum to make sure that it was being done in a way that was effective and that could be done smoothly for implementation of the new curriculum across the province. Staff worked very hard with school districts to ascertain whether they had the capability, resources, staffing and materials to implement it on the schedule that had been proposed and if they had any concerns about it. Having ascertained that there were a few but not significant ones, the great majority of IRPs are going ahead on the original schedule, including this one.

A. Sanders: On Friday my colleague from Delta went over the music program cuts in the Kitimat area with the minister, I believe. Is that correct?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: In Kitimat we're seeing a school district that is making serious cuts to its fine arts program at the same time that we're having an IRP released that says that there should be goals and equity in the fine arts programs across the province. One of the areas that suffers the most -- and will suffer under the Premier's agreement, should it be accepted -- will be programs such as band and other fine arts programs. These are areas that will suffer significantly should school districts not have the funding to meet the needs of the targeted areas in the Premier's agreement. Has the minister looked at the confusion that will be caused within the fine arts areas by accepting the agreement-in-committee at the same time as he's releasing an IRP on fine arts that says that we need to promote equity in the fine arts across the province, and so on and so forth?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The IRP covers courses at the elementary school level which are optional. Some districts have some courses and some have others. It's important that we have a provincial curriculum for implementation of these courses that are widely offered by districts, just as we do for languages that may not be offered in every district.

A. Sanders: How does the minister monitor and come to understand the differentials and variation across the province in fine arts programs? What kind of reporting system does ministry staff use to recognize that in some areas there may be a band program, a vocal program and a dance program, and in another place there will be absolutely no fine arts programs at all? What kind of information-gathering is available to the minister to become apprised of these concerns?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I asked staff very directly if they knew of any school or any school district where we had no fine arts at all. I'm pleased to report that they don't know of any such school. If the member knows of one, we'd be interested -- since she seems to believe that there is such a school. The ministry does get enrolment numbers for grade 11 and 12 fine arts courses. It doesn't get enrolment numbers for courses below that level; that's kept at the district level. The accreditation process seeks to measure courses that are being offered in schools, to make sure they have the right mix. Boards make their own decisions on other courses that are being offered in their districts.

A. Sanders: I'll put it into simpler terms. Can the minister tell me how many schools at the elementary level no longer have band programs because of cuts made at the district level?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: Can the minister not tell me that because he doesn't want to or because we don't collect the information that way? Which is it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does not receive enrolment figures on which districts have that program.

A. Sanders: From the point of consistency and logic, we're going to have an integrated resource package talking about dance, drama, music and visual arts for kindergarten-to-grade-7. We have an OCG report that talks about accountability and asks us to give an accounting of what kinds of services we have. We've got terms such as mandatory and flexible in the IRP -- in some cases even applying to the same area of study. I would think that, based on the idea that the government is in the years of becoming more accountable to the taxpayer and having just come on the heels of the OCG report for education on how learning outcomes are to be evaluated in terms of standards. . . . If we don't know things such as how many schools do not have band programs -- which, to me, is a pretty basic kind of fine arts program. . . . It's something that's been around as long as most of us in this room would have been in the school system, either as a child or as a parent. I'm just wondering: will there be any movement by the ministry -- especially with the setting up of the ministry framework with an accountability arm -- to try and cross-reference things such as setting out a fine arts IRP in

[ Page 7705 ]

primary and elementary years and the fact that right now we don't collect the information to tell us whether our schools have band programs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: IRPs are indeed an important part of how we are accountable to the public for the quality of education that children receive. IRPs lay out, for districts and for their professional staff, what the goals of programs are and what resources should be used or are available to work with children to attain those goals in those programs. I said very clearly that this IRP covers a number of areas that are optional. Not every school has dance; not every school has band. These figures are not kept on a provincial level. Districts do, I understand, keep some of them -- some districts, at any rate.

A. Sanders: I'll look forward to finding out next year how we are keeping some of those figures. These are very, very important figures -- looking at the fine arts area -- of how we provide an education, and hopefully a liberal arts or science education. Although we collect many kinds of information right now, I don't think that this area, especially, is working under the accountability framework or matrix outlined by the comptroller general's report.

Another question to the minister regarding eye testing. Could the minister tell me the usual circumstances in school districts for kindergarten pre-screening, how those are conducted and funded and what he knows about those programs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd ask the member to perhaps elucidate the particular program she's talking about. It may be a local program that she's talking about -- in a couple of districts. Ministry staff are unaware of any provincewide eye-testing program for incoming students.

A. Sanders: Well, that's interesting, and I appreciate that information. I've lived in two different school districts during the time that I've sent children to school, and in both those districts there is a kindergarten pre-screening program. The public health nurse comes into the school and sees the prekindergarten children, usually in June. It's before they go to kindergarten in September. There is an audiology test, a vision test, and so on and so forth. There are also districts that have traditionally done that and no longer do it. However, I wasn't sure. . . . I didn't understand that this isn't done as a provincial mandate, either with funds from the Ministry of Health or whatever.

The reason I ask the question is that I had a grade 1 teacher, in a district that used to do the kindergarten prescreening, who had two children who came into the system, into kindergarten, after the pre-screening program was discontinued in her district. At the beginning of the year, she said she felt there was a problem with their vision. Both of these children, incidentally, had failed grade 1. At the second go-round, she was the teacher for the children and insisted that they be screened. Both of them had severe visual difficulties. Her question to me was: if these children had been screened, would they in fact have failed grade 1 the first time around because of visual acuity problems?

I think that if this isn't a provincial mandate, then there should be some thinking about whether this is a useful service and how we should encourage our school districts to ensure children have at least a visual acuity test and an audiology screen, both of which are relatively inexpensive. I believe the nurses come in and do immunizations anyway. That's why I thought this was something that all schools did. The nurses are there anyway; it's not like they have to come back for a special day. The children get it all in one go, and they're all screened prior to going to school. That just made sense to me, and I didn't understand. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm going to repeat for the member: the Ministry of Education doesn't run such a program. Actually, I was trying to remember back to the experience of my children when they entered public school. I can't say that I remember whether they had either eye or audiology tests. I surely agree with the member that it would be desirable to have that service available for kids that are coming into school. Obviously there is a wide range of factors or conditions that could interfere with a child's learning. The earlier they are identified, the greater chance we have of dealing with them and helping kids succeed in school.

A. Sanders: It's really a moot point to be in a circumstance where you pump a lot of money into class size for kindergarten-to-grade-3, and you have kids in the class who can't see -- and, in fact, in this very unfortunate circumstance, kids who had actually failed. Again, this is a bit of an oversight -- if that's a pun that I could use in this circumstance with no offence to those families. I would appreciate the minister looking into that a bit more.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do have services in schools to help kids that are having difficulty. The member is well aware of it, and I thank her for putting yet again on the record the Liberal Party's opposition to reducing class size.

A. Sanders: Again, the record will show that this Liberal member says that the $150 million should in fact be kept in education, most definitely, and that the decision on how it would be spent should not be made in the Premier's Office with a number of people who don't have the expertise to make those decisions -- and with a couple of half-sharpened crayons. It should be made by the teachers and the school board trustees who understand the system and are responsible to the taxpayers -- unlike this government. It should be made in a 30-day cooling-off period that would start right now. And they'd come back in June and tell us the best way to spend that $150 million: how to organize class size, how to make our kids in our communities and our teachers in their classrooms get the best education possible with new money in the education system. So I'll just forgo comment on that comment by the minister, which was probably made in desperation.

[4:15]

One last question on Hammond Bay Elementary School. I received a very significant number of letters from the Hammond Bay Elementary families in Nanaimo on the topic of the seismic assessment. This school has a very high hazard rate, and upgrades have not been done. I just wonder: did the minister respond to the Hammond Bay parents and the multitude of letters that were written to him?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This issue was canvassed in estimates last week. I think the ministry's commitment to working with the district on Hammond Bay is clear. I must say, though, that the only people I see desperate around the agreement-in-committee to improve education are the Liberal opposition. They're desperate to find some way they can oppose the adding of $150 million into our public school system. They're desperate to find some sort of political lever whereby they can oppose reducing class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 -- the

[ Page 7706 ]

very time when every study and every expert says that we ought to put in money, that giving our children a good start is best.

They're desperate to find a way to say that ensuring that kids across the province have the same level of access to services, special education, counsellors, ESL and librarians is somehow a bad idea. They're desperate to say that somehow a deal where teachers -- at least their executive -- have said they're more interested in seeing enhanced services than enlarged pay-packet increases is bad for the school system. They're desperate to somehow oppose this system and oppose this huge investment; they're desperate to find a way to oppose the building of a thousand new classrooms to take care of those smaller classes that we're going to need. Absolutely desperate. They're desperate to somehow get out from under their abysmal record on support for education. That's the desperation I see, hon. Chair. I can see the desperation here by the rising level of hoots and hollers from the opposition benches.

A. Sanders: Your words, not mine. The record will show that not a single one of the statements made by this minister in his last delivery will hold any water, nor have they been made by this member. For the record, this member has said: leave the $150 million in and have the people with the expertise make the bargain and come back to us and tell us the right way, the best way, the way that's good for kids and families, for trustees and school districts. Let them tell us what's the best way -- not the Premier's Office and the Premier's political hacks.

The reason the minister will not take up that offer is that I do not believe he has any intention of fulfilling the agreement, and that is the irony and the problem within the entire circumstance. He could prove that wrong by saying: "We will let people go back. We will go back to the appropriate collective bargaining process, and we will allow employers and employees to do what's right, which is to make an agreement the way it is usually done and come to an agreement that makes sense for all people." We haven't had much luck in getting to that stage with this minister.

The minister has mentioned one other point that I need to remind him of. In the Liberal platform we were adding around 1,500 teachers to the teaching force. By the way, this is a minister who, during his tenure in government, has been part of a government that sucked $200 million out of the funding formula for operating budgets. It's very difficult for me to believe for one second that he thinks he can convince anyone here that anyone could do a worse job than the NDP has done in the area of education -- so much so that even the president of the BCTF has been quoted as saying that this government has strangled education in B.C. So that argument doesn't hold much water. I'll give the minister some time to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps the only area in which the Liberal Party is more desperate to find themselves on the right side of an issue than education -- where they're clearly out of sync with the public's desire to see lower class sizes, clearly on the wrong side of the public's desire to see kids moving into permanent schools and out of portables, clearly on the wrong side of the public's desire see their kids get the out-of-class support that they require in counselling and library in-services and a whole range of areas. . . . The only thing they're more desperate to do is to somehow portray themselves as at least neutral on issues of labour relations, when, over their term as opposition in this Legislature, they've been so clearly anti-negotiations, so clearly right-wing and so clearly biased against any sort of agreement that could possibly be reached between parties.

It is a shame that the trustees, through the BCSPEA and the BCTF, could not reach an agreement on their own. I would say that they've been at it for a number of years. The facetious assertion that 30 days somehow brings agreement is almost unbelievable. This is the Liberal opposition that, every time collective bargaining is raised, raises the spectre of essential service and threatens to take away all bargaining rights from everybody. Here we are; we have an agreement-in-committee. The bargaining parties are looking at it and deciding if they wish to turn it into their collective agreement. That work is now underway.

A. Sanders: On this side of the House, we tell the truth. That may be difficult for the minister to deal with.

Again, the 30-day part of this so-called Premier's agreement that the minister has conveniently left out is that during the entire period of time they were negotiating, they didn't have $150 million to play with. They were revenue-neutral. That's a very big difference. It's very hard to make a deal work when there's no additional moneys to work with. It was only after the Premier's Office went on its own to talk to the executive of the BCTF that the $150 million miraculously appeared. If we're talking about bargaining rights, I can't think of anything that probably would go farther from the spirit of collective bargaining than what this minister, his Premier and his government have done in this circumstance.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This matter has been thoroughly canvassed both today and last week.

A. Sanders: It will probably be canvassed for a very long time to come in the future -- or at least after the first year when the $25 million that we still can't find in the estimates doesn't go into the bargain. Then, when the big surprise comes -- that in fact there isn't any money there for any of these initiatives -- there'll be lots more to talk about.

I'll turn it over to my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale.

B. McKinnon: I would just like to say to the minister that in some of the remarks he made previously, the minister doth protest too much.

Before I ask a question, I would like to bring to the minister's attention some of the concerns that the parents and students have in my riding. I would like to say that we feel that the effect of the chronic underfunding in education in a growth district such as Surrey has compromised our students' education and has a very negative impact on these students. Based on the school year, the district accommodates a new student every 28 minutes, hires a new teacher every 11 hours and needs a 15-room school every 15 days.

Students feel they are being shortchanged and that their education is suffering. Students going through the system have insufficient library resources. Technology has not kept up to date, or equipment does not work. There are not enough textbooks for students, and they have to share. Libraries do not have adequate resources. Because of the lack of textbooks, it takes twice as long for students to get their homework done. In many schools, they have outdated equipment. As soon as you get something fixed, it breaks down again. Parents see a system that has been gutted. The need for new schools. . . . New schools on the way will not decrease the number of portables. This government says they're going to decrease the

[ Page 7707 ]

number of portables, yet Surrey estimates that at least another 100 portables will be needed in the very near future. Those are some of the very big concerns in my riding.

I would like to ask you a question on learning-disabled students. Surrey has a high population of foster families, and severely learning-disabled children have increased by 4 percent. To us that's a very dramatic increase. It is my understanding that anything above 4 percent is not funded. I would ask the minister: is that true?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Since we're dealing with Surrey, let's at least put some facts on the record. When this government came to office in '91-92, block funding for Surrey was just over $213 million. This year block funding received by Surrey was $310 million. It's gone up by over 45 percent over the last seven budget rounds -- a significant investment. This year alone it went up by $14 million, an increase of 4.8 percent. Surrey is struggling with rapid growth. I'm not sure whether it's still first in percentage of growth compared to other districts, but it surely has significant growth, and it's projected to have significant growth into the future. Over that same period its school-age population increased by 29 percent.

I'd be the last one to say that Surrey hasn't had very rapid growth to contend with. We've sought not only to keep pace with that change but to exceed it. I think the budget, particularly this year's budget, demonstrates that concern. Yes, budgets have gone up in every area of Surrey's funding this year. Whether it's special education, aboriginal education or ESL, funding has increased and will continue to increase for rapidly growing districts.

One of the reasons why this government brought in a portable-reduction strategy was precisely to deal with issues in high-growth districts like Surrey and to make sure that we are moving children from portables into more permanent facilities as rapidly as we can. As we speak, there are around 325 portables in use in Surrey -- that's both eligible and non-eligible; frankly I don't care -- according to the school district figures that they gave us in 1997. We expect that that number will be down to 205 in two years, and we expect it to go down to around 147 in five years.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member says it's not going to happen. Well, I invite her to some of the openings of new schools in her riding and in others.

The final thing that I will say, to deal with the specific question, is that part of what the member says about funding for special education needs is accurate, and part is not. There is a category within the special education budget called "high-incidence, low-cost." That is capped at 4 percent of school enrolment, since most people feel that that is the appropriate figure for it. For kids that have higher needs, there are other categories that receive much higher funding per kid. Those are fully funded regardless of the number of those high-needs kids.

B. McKinnon: I don't agree with the minister that Surrey has had sufficient funding. I think one thing this ministry has done is. . . . Sure, they've given Surrey a lot of money, but it's only been status quo; they've also taken away a lot of per-student funding from Surrey without taking the growth factor into account. So they haven't kept up, and the infrastructure is falling apart in Surrey. We are not keeping up with the growth in the number of students. Then we go into our ESL students. Out of, say, 2,200 new students that come into Surrey, 75 percent are ESL. I would like the minister to talk a little bit about the ESL funding.

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the districts in the province that do experience rapid growth of ESL students, we've kept our funding exactly consistent this year. Every ESL student identified by a district results in an increase of $955 to the district's budget. This is above and beyond the base amount for other kids. More students, more funding. Surrey will have more ESL students next year; it will get more ESL dollars to help provide the services to the kids.

[4:30]

B. McKinnon: I'd just like to make one more comment on the funding, and that is that the school district had, as I said, a $7.4 million reduction in expenditures. The major impact on the school district. . . . I think they had it because of the impact of 2,112.9 full-time students on the school district. When they gave the budget to the minister, they actually stated that they had 1,838.1 full-time students, and there was a difference of 274.8, which, I guess, don't get funded because of the growth. May I ask the minister: why, in high-growth areas, to help them out, don't you make some sort of arrangement for the increased enrolment to help pay for educating these kids? They don't get it in the first year; they get it afterwards as they come into the system -- right? You understand what I'm. . . ?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I understand the member's question. I'll try, and then you tell me if I've got the issue right. The issue is this: school districts give us their estimate of enrolment every spring. They're going to submit, in just the next couple of weeks, what they estimate their growth will be in September 1998. Surrey and all the other 59 districts will do that. They will develop a budget based on that estimate. As we've discussed earlier in estimates here, very often they low-ball that figure, so they're not hiring a bunch of teachers that they have no students in the classroom for. Come September 30, the school district counts the actual number of kids that have shown up and submits that number to the ministry. The ministry funds any difference in it and tops up the funding, because, obviously, if you've got a couple of hundred more kids showing up than you estimated in May, then you've probably hired a few teachers to take care of them and you've had to buy books and a few other things to make sure you've got the resources to help those kids.

The issue, as I understand it from the member, is: so why doesn't the ministry then start counting at various other points during the year and topping up? If that's not the issue, then I'll sit down.

B. McKinnon: Yes.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is: look, we could do that all the way along, but the best way to do it, we've found, is to do the two-phase thing every year: do the May estimate, the September actual, and we fund you for the actual.

B. McKinnon: My concern is in high-growth areas such as Surrey, where we have such a difference -- like the 274 students. Why does the ministry not have a way of helping these districts have another look -- in January, say -- at the number of kids that come into the system? These districts really need help in educating these kids. These kids are suffering and getting less of an education than in other areas that are sufficiently funded.

[ Page 7708 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We neither reduce nor increase funding based on the January counts that a district might do. There are both decreases and increases. We have simply said: "No, we're going to do an estimate in May, a final count in September and provide the money." Surrey has estimated that they're going to have around 1,800 more students next fall than they had last fall. So again, they have a growing population -- not quite as rapid as in some previous years, but they will have far more students next fall than they had last fall.

B. McKinnon: I'd like to ask the minister about some of the schools in my area of Surrey-Cloverdale. Fraser Heights Secondary, I understand, is supposed to have had the shovel in the ground and had construction started. I'd like to know exactly where it stands and when the minister feels that this school will be ready for occupation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been informed by a staff that the tender has been awarded, so one would expect that construction will begin imminently. They're targeting January 2000 for the opening of the doors.

B. McKinnon: Not until the year 2000? In here it's estimated to open September of 1999. It has been delayed again?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been advised by staff that we shouldn't take the pressure off the construction firm. The school board and the construction firm are pressing very hard for September '99.

So, hearing the bells, hon. Chair, I propose we recess.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

B. McKinnon: I would like now to carry on with my schools and my district. Clayton secondary school: I'd like to know where that is at and when the doors expect to be open there.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The tender has been awarded. The construction timetable is the same as for South Fraser.

B. McKinnon: W.F. Davidson replacement elementary is a new school, and it was estimated to be completed this fall. Is that one on schedule?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff advise me that it should be ready for occupation this fall.

B. McKinnon: I would like to ask you about Coyote Creek Elementary. It's getting an addition. I want to know where that stands.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was approved as a minor addition last year -- that means under $1.5 million. Staff don't have information for me on the current status of construction.

B. McKinnon: A last question: how many portables do you expect Clayton and Fraser Heights to open with when they're completed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Because of initiatives like efficiency scheduling, we wouldn't expect many or any portables on those sites.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Chair, that just begs one more question. My understanding is that Clayton Secondary, in the five-year plan, is already expecting to add on for 1,000 new students. If 1,000 new students are expected in Clayton Secondary within five years, you certainly must be expecting to add on some portables.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll be glad to review the capital plan with the member at some later date. We do have an opportunity here, in Surrey and in other high-growth districts. . . . While growth remains substantial, it's not at the extreme pressures that have been experienced in previous years. Since we've not only kept our capital budget whole but actually ramped it up to $338 million, it will enable us to dig into that backlog and start removing portables from sites in Surrey and other high-growth districts. I'm sure the member is aware, just from walking around Surrey, that while growth remains substantial, it doesn't have quite that frenetic pace that it had in years past.

B. Barisoff: This pension thing has really been bothering me. My question to the minister is this. The interim agreement that the teachers had with school districts offered a particular pension plan -- or an early retirement incentive plan. Does the new early retirement incentive plan jeopardize the one that they had previously?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the member is referencing the $10 million plan, which was announced in the agreement signed -- if my memory serves me -- in the spring of 1996. That plan remains in place. I think the districts have done almost all the work of canvassing eligible teachers and making decisions on who will be benefiting from that plan. That plan does not overlap with this one, and teachers cannot choose to piggyback one on the other.

B. Barisoff: The question I have to the minister, then, is: in the '96 plan you had a certain amount of enrolment within that $10 million; have you had any teachers who have since said: "Well, I'm not going to enrol in that plan; I want out of that plan now. The new plan is much better, so I would rather go onto the new plan, because I can get a lot better pension"? In essence, what you are doing is undermining the program -- undermining yourselves in what you have offered.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've had no evidence at this point of teachers who have exercised an option under the earlier plan and decided to revoke that option. I would point out to the chair that the plan that we've been talking about is one of the elements of the agreement-in-committee that is now being considered for ratification by teachers and trustees. While I've enjoyed the conversation about it, in some sense it exists as a plan at this point but not as an option that teachers can choose at this point.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister tell me, then, what the average pay-out per teacher would be in the '96 plan versus the average pay-out per teacher in the new plan that you have just offered -- before ratification, but in the new submission that you've made to school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff and I have had a delightful debate on what the various elements of the plan are. Let me again offer that the plans are not. . . . You can't compare apples and oranges. There are some features of this one that aren't features of the other one. Yes, the pay-outs, as far as I can tell, are roughly comparable. But there are clear variations district to

[ Page 7709 ]

district, and there are also clear variations in other aspects of it. This is a complex matter. We can continue to canvass it here, but frankly, I'm probably doing more relaying of staff advice than I am doing a real debate on estimates at this point.

B. Barisoff: I know that there are probably little intricacies of each plan, but what I want to know, in quantifiable dollars, is what the '96 plan is versus the new '98 plan. I've been told that there are now people that were going to go on the '96 plan but are saying: "Why should I be on the '96 plan when the '98 plan is that much better?" What I really want to know from the minister is the quantifiable dollars and what the difference is between the two plans -- not exactly the difference, but the '96 plan versus the '98 plan. What's the offer on early incentive?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not even sure I can add a great deal in general terms to what I've said to the member earlier. On average, we anticipate the pay-out under the plan that's now being considered by teachers and trustees to be in the order of -- I think we've discussed it -- $25,000 to $30,000. That's average. It will depend greatly on district and some other circumstances. I can say that that's the average we know about. The other plan has features that this one does not.

B. Barisoff: The '96 plan or. . . ?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The '96 plan has features that this one does not. The previous plan was not considered to be "cost-neutral." We are explicitly putting $10 million of taxpayers' money into it. This one is a cost-neutral plan, so it looks very different to trustees as well.

We can continue to compare apples and oranges. But I would greatly prefer, since I think the member has already gone past the level of detail that I'm comfortable with, to offer him a briefing by senior staff on any aspect of these two packages that he wishes, so that he can understand fully the advantages of each and some of the detriments of each.

B. Barisoff: When could I get these figures? I guess the most important figure that I'm really after is the quantifiable dollars and the buy-outs from the '96 plan to the '98 plan. When I get school districts saying to me that because of the '98 plan. . . . What's basically taken place is that the government has undermined itself by giving a much richer package in the '98 plan versus the '96 plan. So teachers are saying it's almost a self-defeating move by government with the fact that people are walking away from the '96 plan because it's a heck of a lot better to stay in the '98 plan.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The actual pay-out to teachers is one factor here; there are other factors. This is why I'm reluctant to start throwing those other factors on the table and creating a complication here. Let me say clearly that staff, at least, are unaware of any significant number of teachers choosing not to exercise options they may already have indicated under the 1996 plan. There may be a couple. I'm sure that people are looking at it hard, but any mass migration in the way that the member describes it is not something that staff are aware of.

[5:00]

B. Barisoff: I guess the members on this side of the House find that when dollars are being spent, it's important to the general public and to the educational community as a whole because those dollars could be put towards the students. My concern is. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: So what you're saying is both plans are revenue-neutral -- the '96 plan was revenue-neutral versus the '98 plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The '96 plan was explicitly not cost-neutral. The government committed itself to putting $10 million into it. It's a clear indication of spending money there, above and beyond what could be cost-neutral. Yes, we expect that there will be some cost savings because of the same differential in teachers, but that plan was not designed to be cost-neutral. The one attached to the agreement-in-committee is designed to be cost-neutral. It is designed not to have any other impact on resources available to education.

B. Barisoff: I guess I could buy into that program if it was in reverse -- if you were telling me that the old plan was cost-neutral, so that you would actually be getting more in the old plan, because you're actually putting more money into the system versus. . . . You were dumping $10 million into it, so it wasn't cost-neutral, versus the fact that if you were putting it into this new plan. . . . I guess my concern still lies with the fact that, somehow, some educational dollars are going awry here, and they're not going towards students where they should be. I agree with the fact of early retirement. There's no doubt about that, but I have real concern when I find that the government is undermining its own early retirement package by giving a greater incentive from '96 to '98 and having people, once they figure out the system of getting away from it. . . .

My final question will be. . . . You were telling me that this retirement package -- you just mentioned it a second ago -- is part of the overall agreement. If the school boards or the teachers turn down this agreement -- this is not a separate agreement with the BCTF but is within the entire package -- is it gone out the window, and there's no early retirement incentive?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This would not be part of any collective agreement ratified by the parties. This is something of an accord worked out with teachers and with the superannuation commissioner and others to make sure it is cost-neutral -- and with the ministry, of course, to make sure it's cost-neutral. But what can I say? In general terms, it is part of the work we've been doing to enable the renewal of our teaching force through this initiative, along with the renewal and improvement of classrooms through the investments that we've made.

B. Barisoff: I guess I just want to follow up to clarify where I am. So what you were saying was that. . . . Well, you just said it a minute ago: it's part of the overall agreement. It's not part of it. It's in a separate agreement that has been worked out with government and the BCTF as an early retirement package. Don't get me wrong; I am a strong proponent of the early retirement incentive as a whole. I just want to make sure that wherever this funding. . . . But a second ago you said that it was part of that, and I just want to be sure that you clarify whether it is part of it or it is not part of it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope I have clarified that it is not part of any collective agreement that would be ratified by the parties.

B. Barisoff: I keep saying: "One last question." That would be at no cost to the school districts -- whatever happens here -- if it's revenue-neutral?

[ Page 7710 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a cost-neutral package. That's what I've said.

B. Barisoff: No cost to the school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as I know, there's no cost to the school districts. We're helping to renew the workforce by allowing some people to retire early and using the savings to hire some new people to make up the difference. I'm unaware of any cost to school districts in here.

S. Hawkins: This is an issue that was raised in '96, last year in '97, and now in '98. I think the minister probably knows what I'm going to ask; it's about a capital project in my riding. It's one that has been discussed to death, probably. The school is near death, actually. It's Kelowna Secondary School. I wonder. . . . I'm sure the minister will go back to the record and read the preamble from this year and the year before, but can this minister confirm that school district 23 will get the planning funds and the construction funds during the 1998-99 year so that we can replace Kelowna Secondary School?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

S. Hawkins: Well, that's a shame. Can the minister then tell us what discussions he's had with the school board, and what he's told the board about construction or planning funds that they're to receive for this school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm trying to remember, when we discussed Kelowna Secondary School last year, whether the proposal was in place or whether doing this sort of three-way swap with Okanagan University College, Kelowna Secondary School and some new facility was just being talked about. I'm sure that the people in Kelowna share the frustration of the member opposite and myself at that process, which my ministry and the Ministry of Advanced Education invested some $75,000 apiece in and which, we concluded at the end of the day, gave no savings. And the costs of renovating the K.L.O. campus of Okanagan University College as a secondary school simply didn't justify this sort of three-site swap that was going on. I thought it was an avenue worth pursuing at the time, and I was sorry that it came to nought at the end of the day.

I'll describe for the member work that's underway as we speak. Staff met with the board and staff of school district 23 in the last couple of weeks to figure out the next steps in getting on with the KSS project. The board has been asked -- and has agreed -- to prepare a business plan in which they will select a site, dispose of assets and proceed with the construction of a new KSS. In the '98-99 capital budget, they have been granted $50,000 for the purpose of doing this study -- they don't have to find it internally; they can do this study with money the ministry is providing -- and $200,000 to start the detailed planning for a new KSS. That's the amount of money that so far has been included in the '98-99 business plan, and that's why I had to be so firm with the member in response to her initial question when she asked about construction money. That money is not in this year's capital plan.

S. Hawkins: I think the real shame here is that after all the money that's gone into planning, into studies, into upgrading this school to bring it to minimum safety standards, it is still not a safe school. I know the minister has walked through it; I have several times. We know there was a fire there last year; we know what the fire exits are like; we know the kind of traffic flow that goes through that school. I walked through the bathrooms. Unfortunately, with the cutbacks, they are filthy. There are more students in that school than that school has the capacity to hold, and we know that. The school is in really, really rough shape. It's probably the most talked-about building in Kelowna. I hear it from parents; I hear it from kids; I hear it from trustees. Everywhere I go I'm asked: "When are we going to get a new school for our kids?"

I talked to one parent about a week and a half ago, and she's put four kids through that school. She told me that this government's been promising that her kid will have a new school by the time the last one graduates. And you know what? That's not going to happen. I probably should ask the minister: do you think that there will be a new school built for KSS before the year 2000, then, or should we just abandon this? Will the minister commit to having a new school in place for KSS by the year 2000?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the member's asking if we can get the doors open on a new school by January 1, 2000, the answer is clearly no. We'd have to have the shovels in the ground as we talk right now, and right now we're still at the point where we're asking the board to produce a business plan for what properties they're going to dispose of to offset the cost of the new school, to choose a site and then to get on with the planning of that school. So clearly the answer to that question is no.

I would say that I share the member's view that this is one of the two or three top replacement projects that I'm aware of in the province. It has not been a pleasant experience to deal with the frustration of the last year, in my time as minister, in trying to deal with this particular issue. I'm only glad that the fire rumour of last year turned out to be, I think, more a regrettable student prank than anything else -- though, given the potential seriousness of a fire in an old school, it was a rather inappropriate prank to shove a bird's nest into a ventilating system and torch it.

S. Hawkins: The minister was talking about shovels in the ground. I submit that the shovel's been in something else for the last few years. Can the minister tell us if the ministry and the minister will allow the school board to sell the land or swap it for another piece of property and use that to build another school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's precisely the option that the school board is pursuing -- to see if that makes any sense. That site isn't the somewhat rural suburban area that it was when the school was built many, many years ago. Now at times it feels like it's in the midst of a freeway, almost. So there may be some opportunity to sell that land and use that revenue to offset the cost of site acquisition and construction for a more appropriate site for KSS. That's what the business case is about; that's what the board is working on.

S. Hawkins: I want to understand clearly from the minister. The ministry will allow the school board to sell that land, keep all that money and commit that money to a new school. If there's a surplus, will the school board get to keep that as well?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, the goal here is to offset the cost of a new school with land disposal from the existing site. I've heard nobody tell me that they believe that the revenues

[ Page 7711 ]

generated from disposing of that site are going to cover the entire cost of a new school and have something left over. It will help defray the cost of a new school, but it surely won't cover it.

S. Hawkins: I think last year we stood here talking about this on the minister's birthday, and I had said I hoped we wouldn't be standing here next year. Although we're not into July. . . . This will be haunting the minister -- if he's still the Minister of Education next year -- because this is something that is very, very important to the kids in our area. I drive by that school every day, and it's a real shame what we've allowed to happen there. I hope the ministry's working really hard to fix it, and we will be following up on it.

The other thing that concerned me this last year was the issue of walk limits and school boards providing bus service for kids. It showed up in the fall, of course, when kids are going to school and parents have kids in one school and another one that has to go to another school. The riding that I represent is an urban-rural split. We have kids that don't fall within the busing limits, but the walk that they do have is sometimes not very safe -- through unlit walkways or longer distances than parents feel comfortable with.

So I know that the parent advisory council did come up with a resolution, and certainly our school trustees in district 23 support that resolution. I'll just read it here. It's resolution No. 2 that the BCCPAC passed, "Safety First in Transportation." It reads: "Be it resolved that: the British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils urge the Ministry of Education of B.C. to have safety as a priority when considering walk limits, more so than distance; adequate funds be provided for transportation to the boards in those districts where the safety of the children is threatened."

I want the minister's comments on this. I know it just came in the last month or so, but is the ministry considering this? If so, what kinds of measures are they putting in place to support this resolution?

[5:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I share the member's concern. Not to put too fine a point on it, but my kids have walked to elementary school starting when they were very young -- in grade 2, I think, my son started walking. It was probably at the outer limit of what you could do for that: 3.5 kilometres or so. Part of it, at the time we moved to our house, was about a mile and a half of trail down through the woods. So he learned lots about how to deal with bears in the spring and fall -- a different kind of safety issue than we talk about in cities but surely a safety issue. There are cougars in your part of the province, in some cases.

What we do with the walk limits, though, is set out a pattern for how we fund districts. Districts have the ability to vary within that and at times to provide complimentary service to kids that don't fall within the strict limits that they wish to set. Without having the ministry consider the safety of every route, it's very difficult -- and at a time when we're asking boards to take on that responsibility -- for the ministry to assume that and then evaluate every route. I've talked to BCCPAC about this issue. I've also told them what I've told you, and I recognize the concern. As we look at the variety of funding factors, I'm always willing to look at additional considerations, and safety of students is always primary, both in districts as they look at transportation and as I look at transportation. But are we contemplating a cut to the chase, an overall revision of the walk limits? At this point no, we're not.

S. Hawkins: We have bears in our area too. In fact, there were a couple that came close to a children's playground last year or the year before. We do have those kinds of concerns close to Kelowna and Westside as well. It's something I would encourage the minister to look at, especially in areas the minister says he represents where children are at risk when they walk distances, and certainly in the urban areas, where we are. This year one of the members had an experience with a cougar in their riding, so these kinds of things are of great concern.

I also want to relay to the minister that the district 23 school board is very concerned with the way they were shut out of the bargaining process. They have not been quiet about it; they have not been silent about it. I know that they've relayed these issues and concerns to the minister as well. The Ministry of Education requires them to participate in BCPSEA at a cost of around $36,000 a year, and they question the need to be spending that kind of money when they're usurped from the bargaining process, when they're not even at the table.

They're also concerned about whether the ministry is going to give them enough money to cover the costs that are in this agreement-in-committee. I understand the school board had to cut around $400,000 this year. They were underfunded by about $1.3 million in the last year. I understand $750,000 was covered through a surplus that the board had, and they had to cut $400,000 and just wait for it. They decreased one custodian position, they decreased administrative salary raises -- the principals and vice-principals won't be getting raises -- and they made cuts in some teaching staffing at a lower level. Those are the kinds of things that the board had to do in order to make ends meet this year. Now they've got this agreement-in-committee that they're really, really concerned about, and they're wondering if the ministry is actually going to come through with the funding that it promises. They'll come through with some aspects of it, but there are a lot of costs that the ministry doesn't cover. They tell me they're going to be in serious difficulty next year. There is no more surplus, and there are going to be other costs to cover.

I did read an interesting quote when I was going through Maclean's magazine this morning. Mr. Krieger is on record as saying that the NDP seduced them to the table. It's interesting how we got another partner into this relationship that seduced them to the table. Those are the words he used. Just imagine if the partners in the marriage, the BCPSEA and the BCTF, actually had the funds, were given the resources to come up with a contract and to let the collective bargaining process work. I'm sure they would have come up with something. I'm sure we wouldn't be hearing these kinds of concerns from the teachers' groups, from the BCPSEA and from other groups. It's not just the official opposition raising concerns; it's all kinds of groups out there. Some of the trustees did want me to bring it to the minister's attention that our school district is very concerned. Money is tight. There's not a lot of money for a lot of things.

One example, I guess, is that our PAC fundraises, and they buy things like computers -- they buy technology. It creates an operating challenge, because they donate the capital, yet the school board has to fund the programs and the upkeep. Certainly some of those frills are not what the ministry funds.

I could go on and on, I guess, with portables and everything else in the district. But I guess time will tell, and next year we'll probably be standing here and, if this is the minister that's going to be sitting across from us next year -- maybe it'll be another minister, because they have. . . .

[ Page 7712 ]

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Maybe he'll be answering to us. That could be a good scenario. Usually what they do is put another minister there, and then they say: "Well, I wasn't here last year, and I don't know." Hopefully, when this minister says they are going to commit those funds and they are going to find that money and they are going to cover the costs -- which I'm not hearing a lot of in these estimates, and I've sat through a lot of them. . . . Maybe they will do something that's right for kids, but given the performance of the last six or seven years, I am not too optimistic.

Anyway, I'll defer now to the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Well, why don't we just start out? The member for Okanagan West raises an interesting point. It's hard to believe that a year's gone by. I guess it's, according to the minister, 42 weeks. The minister may recall that there was an election in 1996, and there was. . . .

We'll just go back to Summerland, British Columbia. In April we heard announced the building of a new middle school, McDonald school. I'm just wondering where that stands at this point in time in your ministry's plans.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that the Summerland middle school received planning funds last year. I'm also advised that they're about six months away from a decision on whether or not to go to tenders, or about six months away from being ready to go to tenders and get on with construction. So that would be near the end of 1998 before they'd be coming to us to say: "Right, can we get some construction money this fiscal year to get it jump-started?" All I can say to you is that I'd encourage them to do that. I'll look at the request when it comes in.

R. Thorpe: I want to make sure I understand the minister, because last May the minister wrote school district 67 and strongly suggested to them that they look at their efficiencies -- all of these neat buzzwords. I'm led to believe that they've complied with all of those requests of the ministry for both, as a matter of fact: McDonald school, and Snowdon School in Penticton. I want to make sure that I understand the minister here. Am I hearing from the minister today that this government is committing that they do have the funds in their budget this year to move forward on those schools on the assumption that the requirements from the district meet the needs of the ministry? Is that what I heard? Or did I hear something else?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Unless the member has some new wrinkle that I'm not aware of, I would say that your characterization of where they are is accurate. They have done the reduced size and cost per metre. Further than that, I'd commend them on saying we can build two schools off the same plan here, one in Summerland and one in Penticton, and save some of the architects' costs in that way. They are, staff advise, around six months away from getting the final plans done, the drawings done and being ready to go to tender. At that point, they'll be bringing forward their request for construction funds.

R. Thorpe: I liked 95 percent of the answer, but just that little 5 percent was missing. So I just want to make sure that we're all singing off the same song sheet, that the capital dollars are available in the ministry's budget for those two projects, so that within six months, when they get all their work done, they're not going to be delayed again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member has misunderstood me, but I suspect that he intended to. There are no capital funds approved for construction for those two projects in 1998-99. They'll be completing their work of doing the drawings and getting ready to go to tenders, and that will take them about another six months, or very near the end of this fiscal year. At that point they will be requesting construction funds, and we'll be looking at that for inclusion in the 1999-2000 capital plan.

R. Thorpe: Well, that's what I thought I heard. I didn't think I had heard that there was confirmation that there were capital dollars, and I just didn't want to make a mistake there. But I would like to ask perhaps one more question on these two issues: Snowdon and McDonald. I understand you have a rating priority system within the ministry with respect to projects and that "H" is high. I think that's a correct assumption. People are nodding their heads yes. I would assume, though, that you also keep a running total of the whole province on your priorities. Could you tell me right now where the McDonald and Snowdon schools rank on your provincial list of schools to be built in the future?

[5:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, first, planning dollars are included in the capital envelope, so these schools have received capital money this year. The phase they're at is the design phase.

Right now, to address the member's second question, in the current year school districts propose to the ministry funding for something close to -- if memory serves -- $675 million worth of capital projects, major and minor. The capital envelope that we've announced is $338 million. There are good projects that don't make the lists. We think we've done a good job of identifying the ones that meet the priorities that we've established. As the member knows, those priorities are to build as many new schools -- and reduce the number of temporary facilities -- as we possibly can. We also seek to do replacement schools, particularly where schools are nearing the end of their useful life -- as is the case with KSS, which we discussed earlier.

R. Thorpe: I must ask this question on behalf of the students in Summerland, first of all, and secondly, on behalf of the parents of Summerland: does the minister think it's important that people keep their promises to communities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm looking for the question on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I attempt to keep my word as an elected representative of people in this province. I assume the member does as well. We're all honourable members.

R. Thorpe: Well, yes, this member does keep. . . . Well, first of all, I don't make promises that I can't keep. I try to do my best. I want to make it clear that my question was not directed at the minister; it was directed at his government. But this is one community that was promised, in April of 1996, a new school. It continues to be knocked and delayed and delayed. I just want to make reference, with respect to my colleague from Okanagan West, to the deplorable condition of the school the member was talking about. If it's not making the cut these days, I just wonder whether some of the other promises are going to make the cut.

[ Page 7713 ]

But I want to move along and ask a question with respect to selling of assets, because the member for Okanagan West asked a question with regard to funding a school. In school districts that have assets that they deem redundant or excess, is it the policy of the ministry to encourage the sale of such assets and to retain those funds in the district for capital projects?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are probably all sorts of qualifications I should add to it, but the short answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: Sometimes, minister, it's best to stay with the short answer, because sometimes the long answers tend to lead to more questions and potential future problems.

I must ask this on behalf of school district 67. That's the area in the province that I represent, Okanagan-Penticton. I want to make sure. . . . Our school district, like many other school districts, takes great pride in not only administering and providing great education but also in living within their fiscal means, and I think the record shows this. Can the minister and will the minister today confirm -- and again, I believe this is a simple yes or no answer too -- that with the current contract that's under review, the school districts will receive the funding from the ministry required to ensure that all aspects of that contract that are imposed upon them are met?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This was canvassed at considerable length last week. I'm not about to revisit that debate. We will fully fund the enhancements to the collective agreement that are contained in the agreement-in-committee.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to speak for the minister, but my interpretation of that answer is yes. I do have a question on the definition of "enhancements," but unless the minister chooses to say otherwise, I'm going to assume that he is saying that funding will be provided to the school districts for present and future funding. Unless the minister wants to make a comment, I'll move along to my next question.

My next question is with respect to pension pay-outs. I've listened to the debates here as they sort of grow, as more facts come to the table. Again on behalf of school district 67, will the minister and the ministry ensure that districts will be held on this funding issue and will not be shortchanged?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the portables issue. . . . We're very, very thankful in our area. Portables are not as big a problem as they are in some other areas of British Columbia. I recall a major statement by this government -- I think that was during the last election too -- about cutting the number of portables, and now I hear that we have a new strategy. I was just wondering: on this new strategy, is the ministry using the accountability matrix on this entire program and for the entire new strategy with respect to the reduction in portables?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure which matrix the member is referring to.

R. Thorpe: I don't know whether I'm shocked or what. But I would suggest that the minister turn slowly to his left, to his deputy, and ask his deputy, who I believe has served on the council of deputies, which recently issued a report with respect to the accountability matrix and some of the shortcomings that the government is having on this issue. Perhaps the minister would like to reconsider his answer and then explain how in fact they are going to use the performance enhancement and accountability matrix with respect to this new strategy on replacement of portables in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My question to the member was not meant to provoke outrage but merely to point out that there have been a number of people looking at accountability in public institutions. In these estimates we've debated at considerable length the report of the office of the comptroller general. It was not in any way to provoke that sort of outburst or to deny the importance of accountability.

The portable-reduction strategy is consistent and will be carried out consistent with the accountability matrix. We have set some clear objectives for ourselves, both globally and district by district. We have set out the requirements in terms of resources that are needed to attain those objectives. I have tagged staff with reporting to me on the progress of the initiative so that we can ensure regular progress reports and can match results with the plan.

R. Thorpe: I must, just for the record, correct the minister, if I could. He should never get passion confused with an outburst. Maybe some of us care more about accountability and adhering to well-accepted performance management tools than others. I make no excuse for having a passion with respect to accountability and performance assessments.

Will the minister commit today, in this estimates process, that they will provide an outline of the key performance items? Will he also undertake that he will release this information on, say, a twice-a-year basis so that people can see how the government of British Columbia is doing with respect to enhancing accountability and performance with respect to the replacement of portables?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We did so when we announced it. We identified -- clearly, project by project, in last year's capital budget and in this year's -- the time line for the projects and the number of portables that we expected to get rid of as a result of the completion of those projects. We did it very explicitly, project by project, district by district, hon. member, and we'll continue to do so.

R. Thorpe: I look forward to seeing the issuance of those timely reports. Since I'm a member of Public Accounts, maybe we'll invite the Ministry of Education and use this as one of our pilot projects so we can see how people are developing on monitoring their performance and so we can, in fact, roll that over into other areas of government.

One of the things that concerns me, as the minister would know much better than I would, is that some school districts have had to make some decisions over the years -- and most recently in the difficult years -- about which programs they do continue with and which programs they don't. You're talking about a funding program, here, for equitable provincial access to programs. I guess my question is. . . . Some school districts in the province of British Columbia have made choices to ensure that certain services have been provided on an ongoing basis. They've made whatever those difficult choices were. Is it my understanding that if a district had supported a music program or a librarian program or similar programs, they will now in fact be penalized -- they will not get any additional funding? Is the funding going to be there

[ Page 7714 ]

for people that have not performed? And will the people that have taken the initiative and performed be penalized by not getting the funding for such programs going forward?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, first we have core operating funding that -- as I've described to this committee in some detail in the last week -- is distributed, the $3.5 billion of it, to districts in an equitable fashion based on a formula. This year that formula had $105 million of additional funding to allocate. I believe that as a result of that we were able to increase per-student funding by some $93 per child on average across British Columbia -- some districts more, some districts less. I believe that the district you're talking about, district 67, indeed got a 2.6 percent funding increase this year, a significant amount of additional money -- if memory serves, something over $1 million -- so they can continue to enhance education for kids in district 67.

[5:45]

In addition to that money, we have committed through the agreement-in-committee to provide districts with another $25 million in the current fiscal year. That money will be allocated to make sure that it's being spent on the objects that are contained in the agreement-in-committee: the hiring of additional teachers outside of the classroom and the hiring of teachers within the classroom to reduce class size. Those resources are going to be devoted to that purpose.

Finally, as I've discussed repeatedly in this committee -- to acknowledge very clearly that there are variable impacts of this agreement around the province -- the goal here is to establish equitable levels for class size and out-of-class resources across British Columbia, a significant new investment in the education of our children.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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