[ Page 9901 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

JOBS: A REALITY CHECK

One of the things that I have taken a very strong personal interest in since being elected is the issue of jobs and job creation in British Columbia. I thought it was appropriate that we take a few minutes to stop and look at some of the claims that have been made and at the direction that we have tried to go in this province in the last two years in terms of job creation, and then to do what I call a reality check. Let's stop and look at exactly whether or not things have been successful to date.

What we have found over the past two years particularly is a particular orientation of job creation towards one of specific government programs, typically micro-programs. It comes back to what I remember from my economics lessons many years ago: the difference between macro- and microeconomics, with microeconomics being the theory of the firm, as I recall it from those classes at the University of Victoria. Microeconomics is when you're looking at the economics of a particular company -- just a very small sector. Macroeconomics, on the other hand, is looking at the economy as a whole, not looking just at the level of the individual company but at the dynamics that come out of government policies -- the overall dynamics.

I think that's one of the fundamental differences in how the two parties in this House approach the issue of economic growth and job creation. Over the last two years we have seen a focus on the micro level and its programs to create specific jobs in a specific company -- and then it produces the press release -- and programs where targets are announced but we don't necessarily see those targets implemented.

I know that publications that the government has put out include the words: "Government does not create jobs; it's the private sector that does." Yet we see from the policies and actions of government that that may not be followed through on when it comes to specific policies. So I want to use the few minutes that I have to basically appeal to all members of this chamber to look at job creation from that macro sense and at the need for government to create the environment for the private sector to create jobs.

I came across a press release that came out in April of 1996, where the government was bragging about the fact that in that particular month-to-month period, there was a creation of 7,000 jobs -- from March of '96 to April of '96. It was interesting that the Minister of Employment and Investment of the day, who is now the Deputy Premier, had a quote included in this press release. He said: "The provincial government has successfully created a climate which fosters private sector job creation." [Applause.]

I see the Minister of Finance applauding, but she obviously didn't hear the introduction. That was from two years ago. In that press release, the minister goes on to say: ". . .I am confident that British Columbia will continue to create jobs at a fast pace." And there is the problem: that's not in fact what's happened. What we have seen is announcement after announcement of job creation programs that have lots of communications value to them, lots of public relations and lots of glitz. But because they're not speaking to the need for addressing the economic climate as a whole -- they are instead addressing just that very small, narrow focus -- they don't have the results. When the reality check is applied, we don't see the results at the end of the line.

We've seen announcements from this government, including things like the jobs and timber accord. We've seen the Alcan deal. In the budget that the then Minister of Finance brought out a little over a year ago, there was a claim that there would be 40,000 jobs created last year. In fact, what we saw when the reality check was applied was something quite different. We've seen Power for Jobs, we've seen northern jobs targets, and we've seen Fisheries Renewal B.C. Program after program has been approached to create jobs in specific sectors. Certainly we've seen the press releases come out in terms of the number of jobs that are created at a particular mill or the number of jobs that are created as a result of a forest licence. But when the reality check is applied, that simply doesn't hold up.

What I see as the reality check is the labour force survey. The labour force survey which came out this morning at 7 a.m. from StatsCan shows that year after year we have seen a fairly significant decline in jobs. I think that's the reality check we have to apply when we start to evaluate whether or not various programs have been successful. But it's interesting that what we have seen just in this last short little while is that the jobs that have been created in British Columbia have been created in the public sector, not the private sector.

This StatsCan labour force survey talks about a Canada-wide increase in public sector employment of 38,000 month to month. It says: "The increase was concentrated in community services in several provinces, but most notably in British Columbia." It goes on to talk about job losses in the goods-producing sector. They singled out British Columbia again to say that there had been a gain of employment in education of 28,000. Again they say "with the increase concentrated in British Columbia." Certainly we recognize the need for more teachers. But what's important is that it is essential that we have job creation programs that are going to result in jobs in the private sector.

I will take my place and save my closing remarks for later.

M. Sihota: Good morning, hon. Speaker. What a wonderful day in British Columbia. What a beautiful place to live. What a dynamic economy we have here in this province. The whole world wants to come to British Columbia. There's sunshine throughout this province -- except, of course, on that side of the House, where there's doom, gloom, clouds and skies that keep tumbling down. There's negativity on that side

[ Page 9902 ]

Let's look around British Columbia and see what's happening in the private sector side of our economy. You know what, hon. Speaker? We're making tremendous progress in finding new entrepreneurial niches in British Columbia. The entrepreneurial spirit in this province is running full speed ahead, and we're creating jobs in a number of sectors in record numbers.

Let's take a look at the information technology sector in British Columbia. I'll tell you what's happening. This year alone that sector has grown ten times faster than the rate of growth of the economy. It's replaced forestry as our fastest-growing technology, because we're training young people today to meet the economic demands of tomorrow in terms of information technology. Yes, we're investing in education so that we have people trained to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Look at the biotechnology sector.

An Hon. Member: What's happening?

M. Sihota: Incredible growth! The hon. member asks: "What's happening?" I'll tell you what's happening, hon. Speaker: 60 percent more jobs in biotechnology this year than last year -- 60 percent. Entrepreneurs in that sector -- the fastest-growing -- are investing here in British Columbia. We're seeing remarkable growth in that regard.

Tourism. The member picked up the figures yesterday from StatsCan, but he makes no reference to what's happening in tourism -- number two in terms of our industries, hon. Speaker. You know what? It increased by 6 percent this year. You know why? Because this government sees the value of tourism. The Minister of Tourism went up and down North America promoting British Columbia. Americans and Canadians are coming here because British Columbia is the place to live and the place to visit.

[10:15]

Let's not lose sight of some of the other positive developments within our economy. This week our government announced reductions in terms of taxes and exploration credits in mining and the oil and gas sector. It is forecast that this sector is going to create 40,000 new jobs, mostly in northern British Columbia, generating regional economic growth.

The member should wake up and take a look at the remarkable initiatives that this government is taking in terms of job creation. We live in a province which has the highest credit rating of any province in Canada, tied with Alberta. It's number one in that regard. We have the second-lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the country. We're managing the debt of this province better than any other province in the country. We have the smallest per-capita civil service in the country, so we have a very efficient public sector. At the same time, this government has reduced taxes for small businesses, reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated the capital corporation tax on thousands of businesses in British Columbia. This has historically been the place to do business. This government will continue to attract investment to this province. We're proud of our record. We see that we're headed in the right direction. I regret that the hon. members of the opposition see no value in what we're doing.

The Speaker: No, don't go there.

M. Sihota: But don't worry, British Columbians are full of enthusiasm. They're full of excitement; they see what this province has to offer. We on this side of the House see it, and I regret that the members opposite don't.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that private members' statements are meant to be non-partisan in nature. I appreciate the effort of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to keep it as non-partisan as he could make it. But I think this is a classic example of why I titled this particular private member's statement "Jobs: A Reality Check." You can have all the rhetoric you want; you can put out all the press releases you want and all the rants from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. But the reality check comes down to labour force statistics.

Labour force statistics show that for all the rhetoric, all the rants, all the fine words and all the advertising campaigns, the reality is that the number of unemployed in British Columbia is rising. The reality is that in June of last year there were 164,000 unemployed in British Columbia; today there are 184,000. That's the reality check. When you start looking at all of the wonderful talking points there may be to justify the directions that this government has taken, the bottom line is that when it comes to the number of British Columbians who actually have jobs and the number who are unemployed in this province today, the reality check does not support the rhetoric. The reality check does not support the advertising campaign that they have put out.

Hon. Speaker, the reality check, when you talk about things like the debt, is that British Columbia has the fastest-growing debt of any province. We are the only province that has a declining credit rating.

You start looking at our youth unemployment numbers. Today it comes out, and it shows that British Columbia now has the second-highest student unemployment rate in Canada. Only Newfoundland now has a higher unemployment rate. The unemployment rate for June stood at 22.9 percent, and this is up 2.3 percentage points from the same month last year. I think -- again, to keep this in a non-partisan tone -- all of us in this chamber, all 75 of us, have to sit down and collectively address the solutions to those problems. Clearly the route that we have gone today is not the answer. So I hope that we continue to take a look at the reality check to measure the actual outcomes, not just the press releases and announcements that come out. With that, hon. Speaker, I will pass it on to the next person.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. members. The Chair would like to offer an observation or two on the exchange that has just taken place. While it was spirited, and that was fun, it did stray somewhat beyond the spirit contained within the notes written up about private members' statements. If you don't mind, I would like to offer a quote, particularly today. It goes as follows: ". . .it seems to the Chair that it is

[ Page 9903 ]

NORTHERN ROCKIES (MUSKWA-KECHIKA)

Of all the recent land planning exercises, this is perhaps the most successful. It was as close as you could get to a complete consensus. It transcended political differences and demonstrated that environmentalists, first nations, resource industries and municipal officials working towards a common goal could produce a result that will, in time, prove to be an example to the world community.

Few places in the world can match the significance of the Northern Rockies or the Muskwa-Kechika area. Found in northeastern B.C., where the extensive boreal plains and muskeg of the east meet the mountains of the west, the 4.4 million-hectare Muskwa-Kechika area remains one of North America's last true wilderness spots south of the 60th parallel. With rich and untouched beauty, natural resources and abundant animal life, the Muskwa-Kechika area has national, international and global significance.

The tables agreed that the Muskwa-Kechika was unique and should be managed as a special management area which would allow resource development to continue while recognizing, accommodating and protecting important wildlife and environmental values in the area. The management plan for the Muskwa-Kechika area balances resource management with conservation, making it an excellent example of how interests that were once in competition have found a way to coexist on the land. More than one million hectares will be permanently protected with the creation of 11 new protected areas. These areas are surrounded by more than three million hectares of special management zones, where wilderness and wildlife habitat will be maintained while resource development such as logging, mineral exploration and mining, and oil and gas exploration and development will be allowed in a way that is sensitive to wildlife and environmental values.

In all, the Muskwa-Kechika is the largest and most innovative package of protected areas and special management zones in British Columbia, which already has a very impressive track record in that area. The Muskwa-Kechika is one of the most significant wilderness areas in North America. It features mature and old-growth forests, spectacular geological formations, lakes, rivers and streams, waterfalls, hot springs, subalpine and alpine areas and major wetlands. It is home to a huge variety of wilderness and wildlife.

Much of that wilderness is ecologically sensitive, and some of the wildlife is threatened or endangered. The wildlife populations are unparalleled in B.C.: 4,000 caribou, 15,000 elk, 22,000 moose and 7,000 Stone's sheep. The area supports the only Plains bison population in the province and also includes 3,500 black and grizzly bears, as well as coyotes, wolves, wolverines and cougars. Furbearers like squirrel, mink, weasel, marten, lynx and beaver abound.

The mountains and valleys of the Muskwa-Kechika area offer untapped wealth. Careful exploration and development will have significant social and economic benefits for all British Columbians. That is why more than three million hectares of the Muskwa-Kechika area are in special management zones where resource development will be allowed. The Muskwa-Kechika borders the potentially richest area in B.C. for oil and gas reserves. In recent years, total oil and gas revenues have exceeded $200 million annually. Permanent employment in oil and gas accounts for almost 20 percent of the local economy, with the number climbing when seasonal employees are taken into account. The central and western areas of the Muskwa-Kechika are high in metallic and non-metallic resources. Exploration projects have been established. Portions of the Muskwa-Kechika area have high timber values. Forty percent of the Fort Nelson economy is driven by the forest sector, which accounts for almost 800 jobs.

Remoteness has restricted development of these natural resources, just as it has preserved wilderness. Within the Muskwa-Kechika area, these internationally significant wilderness areas will remain. Resource development will continue while recognizing, accommodating and protecting all significant values, including tourism, visual quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness and back-country recreation and major river corridors. Any risks will be identified and carefully managed before tenures are granted.

Resource development will mean sustainable growth for oil and gas, mining, forestry, guide-outfitting, tourism and other economic sectors. Directional petroleum and natural gas drilling will also be allowed on the outside perimeter of some of the new protected areas.

Hon. Speaker, there has been tremendous support across all political lines on this issue, and the members for Peace River North and Peace River South have also been very helpful in this process.

M. Coell: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I respond to the comments from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. As a matter of fact, hon. Speaker, I have a picture taken some years ago of the member and myself opening the blue box program here in Victoria. I know that the member's commitment to the environment runs deep, and I appreciate him for the sentiments that he has brought forward today.

One of the main sentiments is the fact that the Muskwa-Kechika is non-partisan. It crosses boundaries. The fact that though there is a bill before the House which is yet to be debated, it can be discussed on a day like this is extremely important, I believe, and can be praised from both sides of the House.

Generations of humans have pondered land use for thousands of years -- how to protect everything from food sources

[ Page 9904 ]

[10:30]

Madam Chair, I stand to congratulate the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on his thoughtful presentation. I congratulate all of the people of the north individually, because their decision is truly a gift to the future. I think that another group in British Columbia that sometimes in the past has been overlooked is the people of the first nations, who also contributed greatly to this decision. They are a part of this decision and will become a part of the future, as they have been a part of the past of that area. I think a very important aspect of this agreement is the work that the first nations have contributed and the whole community in the north. So I say, Madam Speaker, bravo to the people of the north and bravo to this Muskwa-Kechika, a gift to the future.

J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful comments. Truly, this is something that rises above all political considerations. I do want to say, however, that the last six years have been really outstanding in the history of British Columbia in the area of land use planning and protecting areas that need to be protected so that future generations will know that legacy of wilderness that was here to meet the first Europeans and that had been the land on which people with a much different philosophy of life had existed, the aboriginal people, as the hon. member referred to.

The Kaska Dene, a first nation that is in the treaty negotiation process, has four members on this board. They have a term which refers to this area as dena kwa, which means "people's land" in their traditional language. I think we can all take something from that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The management board will ensure that the development plans that are brought to bear in that area bear the integrity of the planning that went into that by northerners. That is very significant, because when I said earlier that it's perhaps the most successful land use planning exercise we have seen in the history of the province, they actually closed the circle. They knew that if we can make a solution among ourselves, it's a solution that will last. It required respect and a recognition that even though there may have been some disagreement on some very basic issues -- for instance, between environmentalists and resource-extraction people -- it was so important that that be done.

I think the world-class nature of this decision -- 4.5 million hectares -- is going to bring a great deal of international attention to British Columbia. As we stand on the threshold of the millennium, I believe that we can perhaps look to this area as a gift from British Columbia to the rest of the world. As other nations of the world struggle with issues of land use planning, we can demonstrate that it is achievable for people, based on a foundation of respect, to come together around the issues that really do determine the future of their children and their grandchildren, in order to come up with a plan that honours the environment and recognizes that the human community is an extension of that environment.

A HAND UP

Well, we have an example of such an enterprise in my community of North Vancouver. It is a project known as the Harvest Project. It is run by Mr. David Foster and his wife Emiko, along with two or three staffers. It's a community-funded enterprise that believes in offering a hand up, not just a handout. It operates totally on community and corporate donations, and its main purpose is to help people to help themselves. It tries to help people break the welfare cycle. It tries to help people when they are at a difficult time in their lives -- perhaps they have lost a job or they are in some other kind of transition. This organization very much believes in the dignity and self-worth of the individual; therefore its programs and its method of offering service is designed to that end. It also believes very much in the concept of personal responsibility.

To give this House an idea of how this project operates, I thought I might take you through just a little bit of an imaginary visual tour, if you can imagine this in your mind's eye. The Harvest Project operates out of a very old and decrepit warehouse not far from the SeaBus in lower Lonsdale, in North Vancouver. It really enters off the lane; that is, the main entry to this point. If an individual were having some sort of problem in their life -- perhaps they had lost a job; perhaps they are among what we call the working poor and want to try to change their life -- they might call the Harvest for an appointment.

The Harvest Project believes that people are clients; they are not recipients of handouts. Therefore a client would make an appointment at the Harvest, and when it was time for their appointment, they would speak to someone who would ask them about their career goals, where they want to go, what their present status is -- all of those sorts of things. This would be done in a homey but professional corner of the warehouse, which has been fixed up to be a reasonable situation.

The Harvest offers a number of services that are designed to help people better their position in the workplace. For

[ Page 9905 ]

In addition to those services to help the individual's self-esteem, the project offers administrative services for the client -- an address to send a response to. The project has found that many people who are in a life transition do not have a place to receive mail, so the Harvest provides that particular service. It also provides instructional workshops on things such as budgeting, job preparation, life skills and a variety of things that people in transition or trying to find a better way in life often require.

They also have a community kitchen. This is a spot where groups can go. Teen moms, for example, use this. They gather there. They learn how to cook basic, nutritious meals, how to shop, how to use ingredients and that sort of thing. The community kitchen is put to very good use.

The services are offered almost exclusively by volunteers. I want to mention that the Harvest Project itself has frequent volunteer sessions, where people from the community are invited to come and apply to be a volunteer with the Harvest Project. They get many, many more applications than they could possibly use. Many of the volunteers are very well-trained individuals who have, perhaps, retired from their field, and they are used in what would have been their professional capacity.

The Harvest also cooperates fully with other organizations and community institutions. For example, as part of their belief in building a person's self-esteem, along with the clothing clients are given haircuts and makeup advice by students at Carson Graham Secondary School.

I see that the light is on, so I will conclude by simply saying that it pleases me a great deal to know that the pioneer spirit of the barn raising is well and alive in my community, in North Vancouver.

B. Goodacre: I would like to begin my remarks by extending my personal congratulations to this couple in North Vancouver who are providing this service to their community. Upon reflection, a couple of interesting points come out of this issue of how national, provincial and local communities can best respond to their neighbours in need.

The aspects of this program which seem to be highlighted in the article that I've been given and the statement made by the previous speaker are the non-involvement of government money, the philosophy of a hand up and not a handout, working on a person's self-esteem and basically talking about personal responsibility.

One of the interesting statistics that flows through the situation of jobless young people over the years, in British Columbia in particular, and that is borne out year after year is that, generally speaking, about 70 percent of young people in need of welfare assistance find themselves back in the workplace, usually within six to seven months. That tells me that the client group the Harvest Project is so good at helping is this group of people who really need to and really want to get into the workforce. It's extremely helpful for people like that to have places like the Harvest Project that are willing to take the time to assist individuals to do what they need to do to get themselves back on their feet again.

[10:45]

In my own community we have a very successful organization at the Dze L K'ant Friendship Centre, which for years has been providing the same kind of programs that our friends in the Harvest Project are doing. It has been funded by public money, and the work they have done has also been extended to those people in our community who, for whatever reason, either learning disabilities or lifestyle problems -- drug abuse, etc. -- have found themselves unable, time after time, to cope with the world.

Those people really do need to have a very special kind of touch, and our friendship centre has filled a void that public programs have had a very difficult time filling. It's one of the aspects of the Harvest Project that I see coming out -- the element of personal caring that comes out from community-based people. Volunteers in particular have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to come forward and help their neighbours in need. It's projects like the Harvest Project and the friendship centre, working together with corporations in their areas and with other organizations in their areas, the churches in particular, and also with the public purse. . . . I think we should applaud these projects, and I really thank the member for bringing this issue to our attention.

K. Whittred: I thank my colleague across the way for his very thoughtful remarks. I'm really pleased to hear about the friendship centre in his community. I know from my own travels around the province in the last year dealing with issues related to my own critic area of seniors that I too have seen many very interesting and worthwhile projects of various kinds in many communities, and it's most heartening.

Related to my colleague's remarks about personal caring, I think that that issue is one which is very essential to my presentation today. To me, it seems that is sort of at the basis of what separates these community-based projects like the Harvest, which is based on community, neighbour helping neighbour, the idea of community and personal responsibility. It can be many times more effective than the bureaucratic tangle that people sometimes get themselves into when they go through the existing systems. I think one of the things that is a challenge for all of us on either side of the House is when we look at how we are going to serve, with public policy, those people who are going through transitions in their lives or those people who need help. The challenge is to try to find a way that we can inject successful measures from community pro-

[ Page 9906 ]

For example, in the whole aspect of lifestyle counselling, when one goes through normal channels, it might be weeks or months before one gets to see a counsellor. Someone who goes to a project like the Harvest will get almost immediate counselling or at least immediate access to somebody, so there is a time frame. I think our challenge as legislators is to try to keep those qualities in mind and recognize that when we are formulating public policy about our social services and about our programs, we must try to bring those old values, those very basic values of caring and neighbour helping neighbour, into the formula.

CHOICE IN SCHOOLS

It is sad that many of the attacks on schools have come from members of the opposition in this chamber, who, for the most part, have not set foot in a public school for a long time. If they had, hon. Speaker, and if they. . . .

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kamloops-North Thompson on a point of order.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, the Speaker cautioned us earlier, particularly on this day, that she would like us to avoid political and partisan commentary during private members' statements, and I'd ask the member to adhere to that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Please -- members have been cautioned on that already today. It would be nice to end this private members' day in that vein.

P. Calendino: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will heed your remarks.

I was simply saying that if the members of the opposition had stayed in a classroom for a few weeks and observed what goes on in a classroom, they would have found out that there are an enormous number of options and choices in schools, and those choices can fit the needs of any student in this province.

Just to give you some examples of the choices in our schools, we have Montessori programs; we have the international baccalaureate; we have advanced placement programs, and fine arts schools; bilingual, multilingual and first nations programs. We have high-tech and film production, cartoon animation and computer programming. We have safe driving, peer counselling and life skills. We have the Olympics of the Mind in elementary schools, to help them learn how to solve problems. We have child-centred education and teachercentred education. We have whole-language instruction and phonics instruction. These are just a few, and I could go on for hours and hours.

The question is: why is choice attractive to some parents? Well, for the large majority of parents, it isn't. Parents are satisfied with the school system that we have. The truth is that choice appeals only to a few of the already privileged -- those people who have the time, resources and know-how to turn the public schools into elitist and segregationist schools. Simply put, choice appeals to those people who want to create a private school system at the expense of the taxpayer. This is the experience that we have seen in the U.S., in Britain and in New Zealand. The members opposite seem to be supporting that philosophy. I have yet to hear from the lips of any proponents of choice a single word about equality and fairness or about the public good, and that's really, really sad.

I will take a moment to talk about charter schools, and I will say what a charter school is. Charter schools are formed when a group of people -- maybe parents, teachers, corporations, business people -- are granted a charter or a contract to set up a particular model of school, free of the regulations of the public school system but funded by tax money and accountable only to the group of people that have been designated in the charter or contract. In short, it amounts to the contracting-out of public education for the benefit of a few.

Such schools are not accountable to democratically elected school boards or to the rest of the community. The group of people in the charter have sole authority over the model of school they wish to run and the program that they want to implement. They have sole authority over the hiring and firing of personnel and over the qualifications of personnel. What it means is that they can hire anybody with any qualifications, or no qualifications, to teach in those schools. That's a scary thought. It's like asking a veterinarian to perform heart surgery.

Just to give you an idea of how a charter school would operate, the Alberta guru of charter schools, Dr. Joe Friedman, said: "We are not interested in having academically challenged kids, and we are not going to have behavioral problems. We are taking the cream of the crop." This means that charter schools will exclude special needs students, will exclude ESL students, will exclude children from other socioeconomic backgrounds. They don't have the inclusive policies of the public schools. They undermine the basic tenets of our society, and they hit at the basic core values of Canadians. Perhaps this is why they started in the United States, where their school system has been in a shambles for a long, long time.

To give you an idea of what some researchers have said, in a book recently published by Elmore and Fuller entitled Who Chooses? Who Loses?, which is a comprehensive analysis of the charter school system in the U.S., the authors say: ". . .increasing educational choice is likely to increase separation of students by race, social class and cultural background." This is exactly what has happened in the U.S., Britain and New Zealand.

In fact, in the U.S., even as those charter schools are growing in numbers, so is the disenchantment of parents with that system of education. Prof. Gary Orfield, of the school of education and social policy at Harvard, speaking of the charter schools in the U.S., said in a recent article: "Charter schools are not the panacea their supporters make them out to be. Indeed, these schools are not well regulated and often fail to serve students or their communities fairly or well. Furthermore, the flexibility and innovation ideally offered by charter

[ Page 9907 ]

To speak a bit about what happened with the charter school experiment in Britain. . . . Wow! Time goes fast.

[11:00]

However, I want to address parent involvement -- and public involvement as well -- in the public school system. My wife and I have served on PACs at both the elementary and the secondary level in our daughter's and son's public schools, and we are proud to have had that opportunity. Some of the frustration we have experienced. . . . We're not alone; many of my friends and neighbours who've done likewise have not always felt that parent involvement is entirely welcome in the public system. I don't say that as a criticism, necessarily; I just don't think we've addressed the ways that parents, in partnership with teachers, administrators, students -- certainly at the secondary level; I think students should be more involved in the management style of a public school -- and taxpayers. . . . I think that too often we as legislators are dismissive of the importance of the taxpayer in this entire debate. The taxpayer pays the bills.

By the way, just as an aside, the member opposite made a comment about private school funding. It's government policy to fund private schools in this province; let us never forget that.

Back to my comments about choice in the public system and parental and community involvement. . . . I made a statement on Public Education Advocacy Day, when the trustees were in Victoria and the AGM was held here. My views on parental, taxpayer and student involvement in the public system are on record during this session. That's the first point I want to leave with this House. I think we have to address or readdress the entire question of how we administer our public schools.

One comment I still remember making in my statement on that Friday was that I feel that the public school should be the centre of the universe of the public system, not some ancillary by-product. I think we will certainly have an opportunity later in this session to debate some of those aspects. I cannot comment specifically on the bill, of course, but there is a bill before this House on this very issue, which we have to deal with.

I made the point about private school funding, so we needn't return to that. It is government policy to do so.

Charter schools. The member opposite failed to mention, even though he talked about Alberta. . . . By the way, I have met Joe Friedman. I don't agree with everything that he states, but he is a true pioneer in the whole question of education -- public, private or whatever else it may be. It's people like Joe Friedman that allow us to pioneer new opportunities in the system of education. But the member neglected to mention that the Alberta government recently withdrew a charter from a charter school in that province. The government has control over charter schools in Alberta. Otherwise, how could they have withdrawn the charter? I don't know all the details of the background as to why that happened, but let's face it: is there a perfect public school in this province? No. Is there a perfect private school in this province? No. Is there a perfect university in this province? No, there is not.

I think we all have a responsibility. Certainly, as a parent, as I say, that's where I'm primarily coming from. But I'm also a taxpayer, and every member of this House is a taxpayer. I think we as legislators have to seriously address and reconsider the entire approach to education. We should not get sidetracked in this public-versus-private scenario.

P. Calendino: The reality and the truth is that in British Columbia parents are involved in the public school system. They are part of the parent advisory group in every single school. I taught in a school for 22 years, and I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that parents were part of the decision-making, that they took part in professional development days, along with the teachers and support staff, and that the principal met with parents every single week to find out what they wanted out of the school system. Students, as well, went to the principal to bring their concerns and their suggestions on how they wanted to see the school improve. When I was a trustee in Burnaby, we initiated student advisory committees districtwide, which could come directly to the trustees to tell us what they expected from the school system.

The member opposite mentioned the charter system in Alberta, but I guess he hasn't been updated on what's happening in Alberta. The flagship of charter schools in Calgary just failed due to mismanagement. This has been the case in a number of other schools all across Britain and New Zealand, where the experiment was piloted.

I don't disagree with the member opposite that parental involvement is needed. It is true that wherever there is parental involvement, children usually perform much better in the school system, and the school operates in a much smoother way. But the schools and the government can't legislate parental involvement. We know that society today puts many, many demands on parents. Many of them do not have the time or the ability or the resources to participate in the education of their children. Sometimes they depend on a private system to do that for them, and sometimes that is not the correct choice. As many educators will tell you, whatever the private system offers, the public system can do it more economically and, often, even better.

I was talking about the experiments in other countries. In his statement on Public Education Advocacy Day, the member opposite was talking about site-based management, which is basically a form of charter school. He brought up New Zealand as a model. I suppose he has not updated his research. If he had, he would have found out that in New Zealand, the system of charter schools has been canned by the government,

[ Page 9908 ]

Deputy Speaker: That concludes private members' statements.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members this morning for their thoughtful statements and their input into the Legislature. The weekend is in front of us, and a number of us -- myself included -- will be attending a service for Emery Barnes this afternoon. It will give us the opportunity to say goodbye to a friend. I wish the members of the House well this weekend. I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:09 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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