1998/99 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999

Volume 16, Number 4

[ Page 13703 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. Kwan: Today, in the member's gallery, we have some very special guests from the People's Republic of China: Mr. Si Zhiguang is the vice-chair of the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Province People's Congress, and he's leading a delegation of government people from that dynamic province. The group is accompanied by Mr. Jacky Tse, Norman Ho and Laura Ye from the B.C.-Guangdong Business Council. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

I. Chong: I too would like to wish the Guangdong Province People's Congress delegation a very warm welcome on behalf of members on this side of the House. We were fortunate enough to share some lunch with them that you graciously hosted, hon. Speaker. I would just like to say to them: [Chinese spoken.] [Welcome, all of you, to Victoria.] I would ask the House to make them welcome.

C. Clark: We're being visited today by members of the Cowichan-Ladysmith B.C. Liberal constituency association, and I'd like to introduce Tek Manhas, Jennifer Burnett, Gail Stewart and Robin Kenyon. I hope the House will make them welcome.

[1410]

W. Hartley: Next year's legislative interns are with us in the gallery. They're here to meet with you, hon. Speaker, with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the current group of interns, and to attend question period. So would members please welcome Dr. Paul Tennant, professor of political science at UBC and academic director of the internship program, and the interns: Sean Edwards from SFU, Aaron Gairdner from the University of Victoria, Simrita Johal from UBC, Sean LeRoy from the University of Victoria, Jerry Muir from the University of Victoria, Jennifer Vornbrock from UBC and Jennifer Erickson from UBC. Please welcome next year's interns to the Legislature.

G. Hogg: Joining us in the gallery today is Allyson Copeland, a grade 11 student from Semiahmoo Secondary who's doing a work experience in my constituency office. I hope the House would make her welcome.

L. Reid: In the precincts today are members of the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, the Victoria chapter, and some guide dogs in training. The individuals I want to recognize are Joan and Jerry Cafferky, David Gerrior, Robert Nemish, Glenys Hughes, Maureen Meadley, Bill Pyatt and Steve Baird. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is the daughter of a very good friend of mine from Surrey. Courtney Martin is visiting her father here in Victoria. Would the House please join me in welcoming her to the precincts.

Hon. D. Streifel: Today I have two introductions to make. In the precincts today are 25 grades 6 and 7 students, and six adults from Whonnock Elementary, just down the street from where I live. It's an old school, going to be replaced this year with one of the new ones. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Taylor. I bid the House make them welcome. And in the same welcome, would the House please extend a warm welcome to Ms. J. Heron, a teacher from Hatzic Elementary, and her 30 grade 7 students and the adults accompanying the party.

J. Wilson: Today, we have the pleasure of 24 grade 6 and 7 students and their teacher, Mrs. Adams, from Lakeview Elementary in Quesnel. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are a group of students from North Ridge Elementary School, which is in Surrey-Newton, along with their teacher, Mr. Gingrich, and some families who have come along. This is a class that's been really active in fine arts in their school. It's also a class that partners with kindergarten students every year to make them comfortable in their new surroundings in the school. So I would ask the House to make them really welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today -- in the gallery opposite -- is a lovely man who took wonderful care of us as an employee of these buildings for many, many years, and it's his birthday. I would ask the House to please wish "Red" a very happy birthday.

Hon. C. Evans: Just about everywhere I've ever gone since I got this job, my assistant Pratik Modha has relatives -- four of whom are joining us here today: Esther and Billy Buchan from Scotland, Mrs. Alice Hoens from Vancouver and Dr. Phalgun Joshi from Vancouver. Will the House please make these people welcome.

[1415]

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. H. Lali: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 78, Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. Bill 78 includes amendments to four statutes: Highway (Industrial) Act, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, Motor Carrier Act and Motor Vehicle Act. It consists of 32 sections, and of those sections, 20 fall

[ Page 13704 ]

The most significant amendments in this bill allow for the economic deregulation of all provincial freight carriers, in conjunction with an enhanced National Safety Code program. A regulatory impact statement has been prepared for these specific amendments, in accordance with the government's regulatory streamlining initiative. I'll provide more information on these amendments during second reading on the bill. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 78 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COST OF PREMIER'S AIR TRAVEL

The Speaker: And the question, member?

C. Clark: . . .if the Premier is intending to arrive at the NDP convention this weekend by Learjet, but I would like to know if the Minster of Finance thinks it's a wise use of taxpayers' money to spend $66,000 so that the Premier can jet around the world in style.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: It is absolute and unmitigated rubbish on the part of the opposition to castigate the Premier for travelling around, trying to drum up business for British Columbians. As a result of just those visits, which have not produced a conclusion with respect to a new aluminum. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: They have not yet produced results with respect to a new aluminum smelter in B.C., but as a result of those visits alone, $1 million-plus has been spent in this province by the private sector on investigating the feasibility. On top of that, this Premier has demonstrated that he is prepared to travel to protect and defend the interests of British Columbians. When Canadian Airlines was in trouble, he chartered down to Dallas, and in fact, we saved 6,000 jobs in Canadian Airlines in this province.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Take your seat.

Hon. D. Miller: Other Premiers in this country -- Frank McKenna, notably -- have been known to fly all over North America to drum up business for their province, and I say that if it's good enough for New Brunswick, it's good enough for British Columbia.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: And I think he should be doing more of this kind of travelling. . .

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .looking for more opportunities for development in British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I suspect that the Deputy Premier isn't the only New Democrat in British Columbia who wishes the Premier would spend more time out of town. But, you know, the Premier's appetite for prestige has cost us all a lot more than $66,000. With one company alone. . .

[1420]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Clark: . . .he's taken 11 trips, which have cost us $143,000 in the last year alone. And this is at a time when British Columbia is in the grip of a dark recession. We've got a Premier who wants to do appearances on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Will the Deputy Premier please stand up and tell us why taxpayers should get soaked for $143,000 just so the Premier can fulfil his desire for prestige and respect and for arriving in style?

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, that's absolutely spurious nonsense. Any Premier in British Columbia needs to travel. It's certainly with some dismay that we learn that the opposition. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .don't seem to understand that. Any Premier of this province has to travel, both for trade purposes. . . . Our Premier has represented this province well in China, in the Asian marketplaces. He's active in looking for new opportunities in the United States, and he will continue to do that. We do have strategies. We have 1,400 megawatts of downstream power that we're prepared to make available for job creation and economic expansion in this province. The

[ Page 13705 ]

COST OF MINISTERIAL AIR TRAVEL

In the last year alone the Premier has spent over $140,000 on private jet flights with one company alone -- 11 flights. Can the Deputy Premier -- I don't know if he's speaking for the government today or for himself -- tell us who else in the cabinet has been chartering private jets to fly around British Columbia and North America?

Hon. D. Miller: I think those travel records are available. I don't mind admitting that I have chartered mostly those turboprops -- not too often jets -- to fly around British Columbia, because this is a big province. I've also chartered jets to fly to Edmonton to take care of British Columbia's interests with the Alberta government. By the way, it's interesting to note that the Alberta government has also flown to British Columbia on those same kinds of issues. That is the job of the Premier and ministers: to represent the interests of British Columbia. If you've got to travel to do it, you've got to travel to do it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The problem is that if you measure the results of this Premier and this government, it wasn't worth one red cent to have them travelling around the country. I have a Ministry of Finance document which shows that last year alone, the government spent at least $6 million on private jet charters. I understand that a significant portion of that was legitimately used for air ambulance. Can the Deputy Premier tell us what portion of that $6 million was used to fly him and his cabinet colleagues around North America?

Hon. D. Miller: The opposition is perhaps aware -- maybe I'll just remind them -- that in the last administration, the NDP government of the day, led by Mr. Harcourt, got rid of the Government Air fleet. I sometimes question that myself, having to fly around northern British Columbia. But he got rid of the Government Air fleet. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .thus necessitating that when cabinet ministers have to travel. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members -- take it easy.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .and when normal commercial flights will not do the trick, then you have to charter. Hon. Speaker, the figures are available; the member knows they're available. I'll make a commitment that I will get those figures for the member, but they're easy to get. Just inquire at the right place; he knows what it is.

PRIORITY OF REGISTERING SEX OFFENDERS

[1425]

We may not be able to do a full sex offender registry by ourselves, because our database is so small. It's impractical to have a provincial registry that doesn't have a database. Criminals don't know any boundaries. They go across the country, both to victimize people and to avoid facing penalties. What I'm planning to do in British Columbia, as a first step, is enhance the notification provisions of our policy, and we're working with the police at this time. There are issues around liability and other issues that need to be dealt with. Once those issues have been cleared off, there'll be an announcement coming very shortly about the enhancements that we're making. Hopefully, once we've made all the enhancements, we will eventually be able to establish a fully functioning sex offender registry in British Columbia, hooking up with Ontario.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I fail to see why we have to wait for Ontario. Washington State has an excellent program. It recognizes the need for privacy for those offenders who make a serious attempt at rehabilitation and who are not, or don't appear to represent, a threat. On the other hand, those people who have been convicted and are on release and who are known to represent a real threat to society. . . . Their whereabouts and their identity are properly publicized. We don't need Ontario. If we're going to work with somebody, let's work with Washington State. But let's get going. Year after year we're waiting for Ottawa; we're waiting for Ontario; we're waiting for somebody else.

The Speaker: Member, your question is?

[ Page 13706 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We've looked at the Washington State model. I don't think that will work in British Columbia. That was the conclusion that the ministry arrived at. The best option for us in Canada is to have a national sex offender registry. That's the best option. The next best option is for the provinces to come together -- particularly provinces such as Ontario to come together with provinces like British Columbia -- to do a united sex offender registry so that there is a larger database. Those are the two better options. The third option is that we go it alone. We have a very small database. We wouldn't be able to have input from other provinces, so it would be of very little value. So what I'm trying to do is have Ontario move.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We will move, and we'll put together a network across at least these two provinces and begin the work towards building a fully functioning sex offender registry at the end of the day.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING

My question is to the minister responsible. After losing six consecutive court cases, spending millions of dollars on legal and consulting fees and commissioning White Papers and brown papers and red papers and blue papers, can the minister indicate: does his government even have a policy on gaming? And if they do, what is it?

[1430]

The Speaker: Order, members.

An Hon. Member: How's the universe unfolding today?

The Speaker: Members. The longer it takes for the minister to reply, the fewer questions subsequently get asked.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The universe will unfold as it should. Just stay tuned. What I will tell the opposition is that we have gone out and talked to British Columbians. We had a White Paper that was out there for discussion. We have talked to local government. We have talked to charities. We have talked to the public right across. . . . We've received over 150 different submissions. It was a discussion paper, and what we're doing is what I said we would do at the time. We want to move forward with a broad consensus of support on gaming policy, and that is exactly what is going to happen. The nice thing about that is that we do have a policy. It will be unveiled very shortly, and that will be something for the opposition to see, because that's the difference between them and us. They don't have policies. What are their policies? They won't give us their economic policies.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They won't give us their social policies. They won't give us their environmental policies. They won't give us any policies.

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, first supplementary.

M. de Jong: What's patently obvious is that the minister wasn't invited to the revival meeting where this amazing conversion took place. He's been left twisting in the wind like a pair of fuzzy dice. The question isn't that difficult. Do they have a policy? Or has this issue become the exclusive domain of NDP leadership hopefuls, like the Attorney General, whose only interest is to ingratiate themselves to the delegates. . .

The Speaker: Member. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .at the upcoming NDP convention?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Speaking of fuzzy dice, where's your leader?

The Speaker: Minister, that's not appropriate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to policies, there's nothing but fuzziness on that side of the House. Whether it's on the environment, whether it's on the economy, whether it's on forestry or whether it's on social policy, there's nothing but fuzziness from that side of the House.

Tabling Documents

[1435]

[ Page 13707 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

Hon. P. Ramsey: In restarting the debates on estimates of the ministry today, I have some information for the critic. He asked yesterday for some information on where we are in enrolment in fine arts courses. The ministry has been able to gather that data and provide it to him.

G. Hogg: Thank you to the minister for that information.

Last summer the government imposed the collective agreement -- the infamous agreement-in-committee -- on the school boards and on the teachers. As we all know, it was rejected by some 90 percent by the school boards and narrowly accepted by the teachers. One of the stated objectives of the agreement-in-committee, as we have discussed in some of our discussions earlier in this debate, was around the reduction in class size over the next three years and the improvement with respect to student learning in those primary grades, which the minister has discussed.

I wonder, given that we have had some discussion with respect to goals and to outcomes, whether or not it is the minister's intent to put any resources, or whether or not any resources have been allocated by the government, to assess improvement in student learning as a result of these expenditures. I particularly reference the discussion we had in which the minister agreed that simply reducing class size alone would not result in effective change but that in fact there had to be a different approach with respect to the teaching techniques that were applied in the classroom prior to that. I'm interested in any assessment improvement that we might be able to see and any allocation that has been given to that type of outcome measurement.

[1440]

The member asks what sort of evidence is being gathered and will be gathered. Let me reference several things. First of all, in the area of academic achievement, clearly one good way of doing that is with the provincial learning assessment program, which does enable us, through testing every year, to compare over time student achievement in core subject areas. Second, with the data we have now, we can look at a number of areas where evidence in other jurisdictions would suggest that we should see improvements in British Columbia as well.

I think I'll mention three or four of them. The evidence from studies in other jurisdictions suggests that smaller classes result not only in better academic achievement, but in better socialization of children in a school setting. We should therefore expect to see, over time, fewer children identified as requiring special assistance for behavioural difficulties. We should expect to see -- because of more attention given to children individually in smaller classes -- fewer children identified as special needs. We should expect to see, over time, fewer dropouts. This is quite consistent with what has happened as a result of smaller classes and better socialization and higher attainments in other jurisdictions. Finally, because of the smaller classes, we should expect to see fewer instances where children are being held back from one grade to another.

Those are things that we currently track. The ministry does do a lot of data collection, so there are a lot of systems in place now that we will continue to use to monitor what we're doing with this provincial collective agreement. There's much more I could say about measures of success here. The experience in other jurisdictions suggests that we can expect a wide range of improvements in the public education system from the smaller-class-size initiative. As I said earlier to the member, my only regret as chair of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada is that within Canada this jurisdiction is alone in promoting and acting on the benefits of smaller classes within Canada. That's truly not so in other jurisdictions, particularly in state public education systems south of the border.

G. Hogg: I wouldn't want the minister to misconstrue or misread the rationale that was presented by this side of the House in voting against the agreement-in-committee. Certainly there were many, many reasons that were given, not the least of which was the fact that school districts and trustees throughout the province had rejected it by almost 90 percent. To look at, as the minister's so fond of saying, but one factor in a decision-making process is clearly not adequate in terms of looking at a rationale for a decision which eventually comes.

[1445]

Hon. P. Ramsey: First let me say, on the specifics of the member's question, that obviously we're now just completing

[ Page 13708 ]

Frankly, if I presented evidence that said there's a huge increase in achievement of kindergarten or grade one students, I suspect the member would criticize me for jumping to conclusions based on very inadequate data. This is obviously going to be a long-term process. I think that I can surely commit that the ministry will be looking hard at the results of the class size reduction initiative for years. I think that the benefits will be clear.

I just wanted to add a couple things. There are areas where we expect to be able to see some additional improvements. I mentioned several. There are just a couple others that the research suggests that we should be looking at. One would be higher graduation rates. As the member points out, it will probably be tough for researchers to separate out the effect of lower class sizes from other factors that may be there at the time. Another would be higher grades overall -- higher academic attainments. And finally, this is the surprise; this is the one that Dr. Achilles, in conversation, really made me aware of to a greater extent than before: better transition to post-secondary education. The work that he and his colleagues did with the STAR study in Tennessee is now covering such a long period -- pushing 20 years -- that they are now seeing a significantly better transition from secondary school to college and university for students who began their education in a smaller class than for those who began their education in a larger class. Frankly, that surprised me. So that's yet another thing we should be looking at.

On the broad issue of the provincial collective agreement, sure, there are a variety of reasons for anybody to oppose something. But I must say that the reading of history that we have here by the opposition critic is quite strange. I remember the critic of the day vehemently attacking this government initiative for smaller class sizes -- saying very directly that there is no evidence that there are any benefits from it, saying that this was a misdirected use of governments funds, that as a government priority this just simply shouldn't compare and that what we should have done, if we were going to inject additional funds into education, was simply give it to the school boards and let them do with it as they wish.

Well, we rejected that. We said smaller class sizes work. We said that's a priority for this government. The opposition said: "No. It's a wrong priority. It's a wrong place to try to target funds. We oppose it." They stood and voted against it in July of last year. Now you may want to rewrite that history, but that's what Hansard reflects. Those are the facts of the case of where the sides of this House have stood on implementing smaller classes and the benefits they bring to our children.

[1450]

The same agreement made reference to the removal of principals and vice-principals from certain learning assignments -- such as learning assistance counselling, special ed and English as a second language -- partially because they're not members of the BCTF and therefore can't participate in some of those functions. I hear from some jurisdictions that this has resulted in some students being deprived of having the opportunity to work with teachers who have qualifications and experience, because they're not members of the BCTF and therefore not, as a result of this agreement, able to carry out those activities which they once may have been involved in.

Can the minister respond to those types of concerns as they're being expressed by various jurisdictions in this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll say this about the implementation of the collective agreement in the first year. Considering that this is a change involving a 600,000-student system with 1,700 schools and tens of thousands of teachers, I would characterize the first year of implementation as amazingly smooth. I should report to the member and to the chamber that right now there are no outstanding grievances -- none -- in the province on implementation of class size provisions. Implementation is going well.

I would further report that on the issue the member raises -- the whole issue of administrative officers' role and how their staffing is calculated in ratios -- that the BCTF and BCPSEA, the bargaining agent for the trustees, have just completed ratification of a mid-contract term set of negotiations on that and a number of issues. Those issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties to the collective agreement. That and a variety of other issues were resolved in these mid-term negotiations.

G. Hogg: The ministry is currently conducting a review of the school accreditation program and process. I'm wondering what the elements of that are. We've been talking about accountability and about goal-setting within the process. I'm wondering what the terms of reference with respect to the accreditation program are and how we, through that process, will ensure that our educational system becomes more effective in the presentation of outcomes on our students, and the accountability that will be contained within that.

[1455]

[ Page 13709 ]

I would also report to the member that the number of schools that we expect to go through the accreditation process in the coming year, the one supported by the budget we're debating, is 260 -- 207 elementary schools, 20 middle schools and 33 secondary schools. That's almost identical to the current year. We had 261 this year.

G. Hogg: The teachers' collective agreement, which was established as an interim agreement, I believe, in June '96. . . . One of the new clauses in that agreement was A.5, which deals with the issue of personal harassment in the workplace. Many of the school boards have talked about the expenditures that they've had to undergo in dealing with this issue since that point in time. I'm wondering if we have any sense of the dollars which have been involved in that. Did the ministry compensate school districts for the actions associated with this -- and the dollars that are generated and the costs that are added to their budgets with respect to this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The costs of grievances and arbitrations are borne by individual school districts and not by the ministry. I think that's part of what the member asked.

As far as the specific issue of grievances relating to this particular clause, the short answer is no, we don't have any tally of that. I can ask, through the ministry and through BCPSEA, if they have any tally of any grievances or arbitrations that have been centred on that particular clause. I must say that, informally, in my discussions with the partners in this system and then in touring schools and talking to principals, teachers, trustees and superintendents, I have not heard of this as a burning or major issue. I know that there was some discussion about it at the time that that tentative or transitional collective agreement was signed, back in '96. My impression -- and I'll see if I can get the data for the member to verify it -- is that that was more a concern than an actuality.

G. Hogg: Certainly in discussions I've had with a number of school districts and a number of organizations which represent educators within the administrative level, they have expressed this as a concern. So if it is possible that the ministry has available to them the values associated with that, I would be interested in reviewing them.

[1500]

Leave granted.

B. Barisoff: I'd just like to welcome to the precinct today 50 grade 7 students from Tuc-el-Nuit Elementary School in Oliver, along with their teacher, Mrs. Katie Friesen, and other teachers and parents -- Mr. Tolmann, Mrs. Gallagher, Mrs. Pavao, Mrs. McAdam, Mrs. Peace, Mrs. Harkness, Mr. Leibel and Mrs. Bouchard. Could the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I am going to be bouncing around a little bit in an effort to expedite some of our proceedings, if that's. . . . I'm going to do it, even if it's not convenient, I think, in an effort to get through the priorities which have been placed before me.

I want to move quickly to the special education review that is taking place. I know there's been a great deal of discussion with respect to that -- a great deal of information that's been carried both in the media and in letters and missives which have been received, I'm sure, on both sides of the House. I have received a number of such letters, and I know that the minister has as well.

One that was particularly touching and sensitive to me was one which a number of students at Jessie Lee Elementary School had written. This has to do with a boy who, as part of the inclusion policy and process, has been a part of a grade 5 class. This boy, Eric, has Down's syndrome, and some of his classmates have written things. Tina wrote: "Eric is a good kid. Sometimes I will help him with something when he gets stuck. I like it when Eric is running in the field. Eric is loved and silly and fun, and sometimes Eric will hug someone like me and Brett and anyone." Jeremy writes: "I have always enjoyed working with Eric, whether it be reading, helping in PE and changing in the change room. He is cooperative and is a good experience for me because I have never worked with someone so cool. And I always enjoy helping him in anything whatsoever. He is the best guy anyone could work with."

I think these are resounding endorsements for the practice and policy of inclusion. I know that the minister has been quoted, correctly or incorrectly, a number of times with respect to his position on inclusion. I have a copy of a letter that I believe was sent to the special education review committee from Roswitha and Donald Shearer, who are the parents of Eric. In one paragraph they say: "It is of great concern to my husband and myself when we hear that school boards in the province are making drastic cuts to special education and 'inclusions have been a waste of time' is a statement supposedly made to a group of parents by the minister, and that is most unsettling."

So I would like the minister to place on the record the official position with respect to inclusion, and the position that his ministry has been taking regarding such matters.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I want to address the specific concern that the member has heard. There is no intention, through this review, of changing the policy of inclusion in dealing with children who have special needs. There is no intent -- I want to restate it just for the record. The policy of inclusion, I believe, has been a sound one; it has worked for special education kids in our province. This review is not about changing that policy.

[E. Conroy in the chair]

This review has generated a fair bit of interest as we look at how the current policies and resources are being used by school districts, because there seems to be a considerable variation from one district to the next. It's intended to assess the effectiveness of special education programs and see if we can identify differences in effectiveness depending on how different districts have arranged and are delivering special education services. It's expected that the team will review accountability systems, make recommendations to me and to school districts on how to improve special education services, what barriers there are to improvements, and will identify what can be done to address those issues within the funding that is available for special education.

[ Page 13710 ]

[1505]

G. Hogg: I appreciate the comments of the minister.

I've also been advised, as I've gone around the province, that the majority of, if not all, school districts overexpend the targeted funding that they have for special education. I wonder whether the minister has a sense of the rollup and the total number of dollars which are expended in excess of the amount allocated.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct. School districts have been allocating moneys for special education from areas other than targeted funds. In the preliminary budgets that they've submitted for 1999-2000, we expect that they will exceed the targeted amounts by around 12 percent. They're taking from other areas of the budget to top up special education funding, to the tune of 12 percent.

G. Hogg: I need the minister's help to understand utilization of that type of money. I've been told that if a class has one special needs person within that class, they may allocate all of the cost of running that class to a special needs budget. I'm wondering what type of latitude exists for school districts and/or for schools for that type of utilization.

I don't want to pre-empt the work of the special education review committee but I want to be sure that they also look at that issue. I've been told in more than one jurisdiction that in fact when one special needs student comes into the class and the class has 24 students, there are 23 other students who may well have their resources and a number of the services to them charged against special needs. That may be one of the reasons why we see some of the targeted funding being overexpended by the 12 percent that you were talking about. I'd just be interested in the criteria and the issues that exist in that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is that the practice the member described would not be in compliance with the reporting requirements of the ministry. If I got the member accurately, his example would be this: if you had a special needs child in a class, the entire cost of running that class for everybody would somehow be borne by the special education budget. That would not fit the accounting requirements that we have in the manuals for reporting to the ministry on how funds are spent. They can report the incremental costs of providing services to the special needs student, and that would be appropriate. I'd be pleased to have the ministry staff provide the member with the exact wording in the accounting manual. If a school district is doing what the member describes, they would not be in compliance with the procedures for reporting that the ministry asks school districts to adhere to.

G. Hogg: At this stage, I'm not interested in the specific wording in the manual. However, I would like a little more clarity with respect to the concept. If the concept is simply that a special needs student and the resources applied to that student and perhaps a percentage of the teacher or however that may be. . . . I'm interested in understanding the concept, as that applies.

[1510]

It could well mean that special materials that might be required for helping a special needs child would be reported as part of the special needs budget. If a classroom aide was employed to assist the child, that would be an incremental cost. Those would be legitimate charges accounted for under special education expenditures by the school district.

G. Hogg: I heard the minister speak at the BCSTA convention, I believe, and he talked about some of the benefits of inclusion. He made reference to some studies which indicated that the performance level of everyone in the class went up. I wonder if he could highlight those comments again for me. I've struggled to find my notes and to rack my memory with respect to those specifically. But I think that they accurately reflect some of the values of an inclusive system, and I would be interested in placing those on the record to reinforce the position that some parents have said that the ministry is drifting from.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We were just discussing what I might or might not have said to the School Trustees Association. I think I would have said, because I think the evidence does support it, that inclusion is generally good for all students -- both special needs students and kids without special needs -- in a class, in terms of both academic attainment and socialization. There are some broad benefits to the policy.

There are some circumstances where that may not be true, particularly in the case of children with severe behavioral difficulties. But that entire literature of the benefits of special education and how it's structured is indeed part of the review that we're now undertaking. I'd be happy to ask ministry staff to get a bibliography ready for the member, if he wants to delve into it further. I can't point to one article that I would say encapsulates everything within the bounds of one article.

G. Hogg: The reference which I was looking at came to mind because of there being so much discussion with respect to special education and so many comments and letters com-

[ Page 13711 ]

Does that help the minister look at it? Is my recollection of that accurate and appropriate? Are there in fact some references to go to, to look at and find and support that?

[1515]

These are among the matters that we're looking at in this review. We are now, as I said when we set out on this review, ten years into this policy of inclusion. We continue to increase the funding that we allocate to the system. A variety of ways of conforming with special education policies have been put in place in various school districts. It is time now, I believe, to review how the current policies and resources are being used and to assess the effectiveness of these programs. That's a very broad parameter that I've set out. But I probably have received more letters on this aspect of the public education system than on any other I can think of.

G. Hogg: Within the ministry or in any of the school districts, is the minister aware of any plans, any discussions, any issues which may be looking at backing up somewhat on the position of inclusion, to where they may be looking at some segregation with respect to children with disabilities? Has that, to his knowledge, been discussed anywhere, or is there any intent to look at or move in that direction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're not aware of any school district in the province that has arranged special education services in a way that would violate the policies of the ministry on inclusion. Different school districts have a variety of ways of arranging it. I would say that the policy of inclusion has never meant, necessarily, that every child every day -- for all of every day -- is in one class. That doesn't happen for special education children; it doesn't happen for other children. There are a variety of reasons why children are pulled out of a class. You know, there are a variety of individual activities and small group activities that go on within a school every day. But let me end where I started. We're not aware of any district that has arranged special education services in a way that violates ministry policies on inclusion.

[1520]

About a couple of months ago, I had occasion to visit the Sunshine Coast. I met with the superintendent of schools and the chair of the board. They've given me a fairly extensive package, including the original arbitration on a case that is still unresolved after eight years. For the committee's edification, I'll just fill in a bit of the factual background. In 1989 a teacher in a Sechelt high school was advised by the board that his conduct was unsatisfactory with regard to young female students in his grade 8 class. A letter of November 1989 is in this arbitration. I won't read it all into the record, but it was made quite clear to the teacher at that time, when he was on notice, that his conduct had to be exemplary from that time on. Unfortunately, in 1991 he showed further disposition to act inappropriately. He was dismissed by the superintendent originally. The school board at that time, in 1991, reaffirmed the dismissal. In fact, the teacher was dismissed without pay. I think it was in March of 1991.

Maybe not without surprise, when this dismissal occurred, the Sunshine Coast Teachers Association grieved the dismissal. That's when we got into an arbitration which, rightly or wrongly, ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. They sent it back for further arbitration. I just read in the paper last week that the arbitrator has quit. He left the case, having submitted a further bill of $10,500 on top of what the Sunshine Coast district anticipates is already $400,000 on their behalf alone. And God knows what the local union and presumably the BCTF have shelled out on this cause.

I have a couple of questions that I want to put to the minister. Firstly, I know that Sunshine Coast has asked the ministry and, I think, has continued to ask. . . . Has there been any financial contribution made by the province towards this obviously horrendous bill, which is still unresolved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has not supplied to that school district any funds connected to this grievance and arbitration.

J. Dalton: Does the ministry have any policy or position on cases of this nature? It goes without saying that $400,000 out of the Sunshine Coast district budget is a lot of money. It's a lot of money out of anybody's budget. How many portables could we replace with $400,000, if the minister wants to think of it in those terms? Is there any policy? Is there any insurance scheme? Is there any coinsurance or anything of that nature to help out school districts that get into these protracted legal cases?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts are autonomous bodies in respect of pursuing arbitrations or court cases. Sometimes I or the ministry may feel that they are doing an appropriate thing; sometimes, as in the case of Surrey, we may think that they are doing an inappropriate thing. But they do have the ability to use tax dollars in the pursuit of or in the defence against such cases on their own authority.

[1525]

[ Page 13712 ]

However, the minister reminded me. . . . It raises an interesting question. He was quite quick to intercede in the Surrey textbook case and certainly made some very caustic public comments -- at times, perhaps, unneeded. So I gather that the minister is prepared to introduce his own personal flavour to some of these school district issues.

But obviously in a very important management issue coming out of the Sunshine Coast. . . . You know, I just shudder as a parent and a taxpayer to think that if the Sunshine Coast superintendent, the chair and the trustees -- duly elected -- have warned a teacher, and he's on record, and two years later he's dismissed for valid cause, yet there's stony silence from the people in charge. . . . I think that's disgraceful.

Who is managing the school districts in this province? Maybe that's a question I can put to the hon. minister. As I say, he was quick to jump into the Surrey issue -- but stony silence on the Sunshine Coast issue. Quite frankly, I think Sunshine Coast is a far more important example of management issues than anything to do with textbooks in Surrey.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The matter in Surrey was found by the courts, actually, to be a violation of the School Act. I think we should bear in mind that that's quite a different level of concern for me as Minister of Education, charged with responsibility for administration of the School Act. In the case of the Sunshine Coast grievance and arbitration, this is a matter pursuant to a collective agreement. I do not believe that I have stated any opinion on any matter before any school district that involves a grievance or arbitration relative to a collective agreement. Yet such disputes arise regularly in the operation of the school system.

The member asks: "Who is running the school districts?" The short answer is, according to the School Act, the trustees.

J. Dalton: In fact, section 15(5) in the School Act is the authority under which Clifford Smith, the superintendent of the board, acted to dismiss this teacher. Hopefully, nobody will quarrel with at least the stated authority in the School Act for the duly elected trustees and the duly appointed administrators of a district to do so.

But certainly it's very disturbing to me, and I'm obviously not alone. I know that the Sunshine Coast people are extremely disturbed by this ongoing and very protracted case. It's still unresolved. As I say, the arbitrator just booked out the other day and has left behind in his trail another $10,500 for the school district and the teachers. . . . You and I know that it's the BCTF that's funding this exercise. That goes without saying. They've got unlimited money to throw at these.

Well, as the Chair may detect, I have a bit of angst. I guess I'm happy to say that I've got one more week as a parent in the public system, and I don't know that I'm all that happy to be leaving it after 15 years.

Maybe I'll just make one other point, as I gather that there is no expectation forthcoming from the minister to bail out the Sunshine Coast on the very important issue of who's running that or any other school district in this province. So the minister is prepared to just stand back and say: "Well, you're on your own, and good luck to you. If you happen to drain your bank account just in order to properly administer a school district and properly discipline a teacher, who was duly warned in 1989 and duly fired in 1991. . . ." In 1999 -- eight years later -- we're stilling spinning our wheels over the exercise. I think that's an absolute disgrace.

[1530]

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's just return briefly to the Sunshine Coast. The member may take issue with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to return this for further arbitration, but I think his quarrel is with the courts.

I must say that if the member wants the Ministry of Education to take on the responsibility for funding the costs of grievances and arbitration in the public education system, then surely he would be advocating that the ministry also take on the responsibility for deciding which ones should be pursued. That is a level of centralization of decision-making over those matters which is quite contrary to what's currently in the School Act -- quite contrary, I believe, to the wishes of the trustees of the province and quite contrary to the wishes of the superintendents of the province as well.

I'm far from saying that these are not sometimes difficult for districts; they are. I've advised the member that through BCPSEA there may an opportunity to provide some funding, if BCPSEA considers this an issue of broad significance for the school system of the province.

I'd also point out to the member that, yes, on the surface this does appear to be a substantial legal bill. I would also point out that district 46, Sunshine Coast, ran a surplus of nearly $800,000 last year, $684,000 the year before that and $329,000 the year before that. This is a district that appears to be generally well managed and is operating within its fiscal resources.

As far as the allegations that the member quotes, I will simply say no, I'm not prepared to confirm that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I thought not, but I just thought it might be edifying for some people to recognize that there are players in the public system who certainly don't necessarily share the viewpoint that sometimes I hear coming from the ministry. Does the ministry keep any records of the number of grievances that are launched in school districts on a year-to-year -- or any other -- basis? Do we have any concept of not only the number of grievances but the cost of grievances?

Now, the minister has just sort of cavalierly dismissed $400,000. He said that maybe that's a bit of a hit for that district. I applaud the district. As the minister has correctly

[ Page 13713 ]

Coming back to my question: do we have any record of the number of grievances and the cost that's attributed to those, whether they be a protracted Supreme Court of Canada case or simply stage 1 and it's filed it away for future reference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, with regard to the merits of the case on the Sunshine Coast that the member's alluding to, it is precisely the issue of whether the dismissal is in accord with the provisions of the law and collective agreements. That is the issue before arbitrators and the courts. The member wishes to assert one reading of the law and agreements, but that is precisely the issue that arbitrators and courts appear to be sorting out. No, I do not have an opinion on that issue.

[1535]

J. Dalton: I think I'll decline that invitation. It'd probably just get my blood boiling even further. I have had enough experience out of North Vancouver, where my kids -- or the last one in the public system -- attend school. I don't need to know any more about that subject. I might ask BCPSEA if they have some records.

I think that, at the same time, I'll ask them if they've entertained any requests from the Sunshine Coast as to whether this very protracted case might not get some financial and, I would like to think, some other kind of attention -- i.e., maybe somebody would like to sit down and resolve the thing.

There's also an irony to this one. The teacher, who has not taught for eight years, lives across the street from the school board in Gibsons. So he's almost there, maybe haunting the school district still to this day. Well, he is haunting the school district to this day. He's certainly haunting the taxpayers of the Sunshine Coast.

However, I will leave that. I'll take a different tack now. Mr. Miller's been sitting there very patiently, probably not participating much in this. But the minister made reference in his opening remarks to the P3 in Abbotsford. Certainly the official opposition applauds the initiative of getting the private and the public sector together to produce capital projects, although we get a little nervous when we think of fast ferries and SkyTrain and other projects that are clearly out of control. It's not because the concept isn't good but because the government seems to be incapable of managing the concept.

However, I want to just ask the minister: is this P3 that is being conducted in Abbotsford an operating lease or a capital lease? I'm just wondering how the government's keeping their books as to how this shows on the records.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I did know the answer to that question when we announced it, because I had been briefed by the accounting staff. But frankly, the distinction has now escaped me. Mr. Miller is seeking to get the documentation for us.

I do know this: the office of the comptroller general, who is very involved in reviewing this project, gave the stamp of approval in saying that this is a legitimate project that is off-book in terms of reporting on this capital expenditure. So it won't be listed as part of the ministry's capital plan.

J. Dalton: Well, I don't need Mr. Miller to be rushing through his books right now. He can get back to me later, after we're done with this. I'm happy to hear that the comptroller general has given his blessing. Has the auditor general's opinion been sought on this venture?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't believe so.

J. Dalton: Just as a follow-up, I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to seek the auditor general's opinion -- I'm not saying his blessing, but certainly his opinion -- as to how the books should be kept. That is, I guess, really the essence of my question on this matter.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, I think -- because he's surely been involved with looking at issues that the auditor general has raised -- typically the government seeks the advice of the office of the comptroller general in advance of embarking on projects. The auditor general's role is far more of a reporter on what's been done. I'll only say that at this point.

[1540]

One other item, while I'm on my feet at this time, if I may: it's the special purpose grant for 1999-2000. I have the document in front of me. Can the minister explain how this special purpose grant is made up? What is its basic purpose?

Hon. P. Ramsey: To whom? To what district?

J. Dalton: Well, I've got the full list of districts. I guess I was going to get around to it, but I'll ask anyway. The minister comes from Prince George. I see that Prince George was given a total shift in funding of $402,894. I -- and I'm not alone -- am kind of curious as to how Prince George was blessed with that kind of money.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The special purpose grants this year were intended to assist districts that were adversely affected by changes in the funding formula. As I said earlier in estimates, we seek to distribute the $3.6 billion for public schools, which we're debating today, fairly and equitably to districts. Every year there are a series of proposals that come forward to the ministry and the minister to change that funding formula.

This year we made a number of changes in areas relating to alternative schools, adults, ESL and career programs. Some districts benefited from those changes; some were affected negatively. For those that were affected negatively, we sought to phase in the changes and buffer them against the negative

[ Page 13714 ]

J. Dalton: I won't pursue this too long, but I'm curious. For example, I see that Prince George got a lift of $209,500 in ESL and that Vancouver -- which, of course, we know has been in the news these days -- was decreased $1.8 million in that ESL list. Do I recall that there was some problem of accounting for the number of students in Vancouver? Was that the reason for this decrease in the funding for Vancouver? Also, why is it that Prince George had a lift of $209,500 in that category?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The difference in ESL funding results from the policy change to focus funding, in the first five years of the provision of ESL services, on children who need to master English in order to succeed in school. As the member probably knows, that increased the amount of per-student funding -- if memory serves -- from $955 per child to $1,192 per ESL student that was identified by the districts.

Some districts had a large number of children that were being reported as still ESL students, in some cases even after eight or nine years. Those districts were negatively impacted by this change in funding. In the case of Vancouver, the total impact without a special grant would have been in the neighbourhood of $3.5 million. We sought to cushion this for Vancouver by phasing it in. I can get staff to check, but I believe the increase in Prince George that the member's referring to simply reflects the fact that they're getting more dollars per ESL student, as are all districts, for the first five years.

[1545]

I'll look forward to receiving some of that information from the officials. At the moment, I think, that will suffice from this desk, and I'm going to turn to my neighbour next door.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, I mean, I appreciate the member's interest in the Sechelt school district. I must advise the member that I surely discuss this district's funding -- the Sunshine Coast funding -- and other matters within the district with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on a regular basis. He's been a good advocate for education in his riding, and I think the member recognizes that. So, far from seeking to penalize the Sunshine Coast, I would simply point out to the member that, even thought their enrolment is projected to increase this year by about 0.7 percent, their funding is actually going up by 2.8 percent.

You know, we do make some changes in the funding formula. Where those have a negative impact, we've sought to cushion the blow by special purpose grants. The purpose of the funding formula is to treat the districts fairly and equitably, and I believe it does so.

J. Reid: I'll take this opportunity to pick up from the question I began with late yesterday evening and to pursue some of the concerns of parents in our local school area. Specifically, the parents who are actually very involved with their schools and involved with the PAC groups with their different schools. The question I had asked yesterday was in regard to the suggestion that parents are partners in education, and that if they were partners in education, then how would that partnership be defined?

The minister answered that he indeed supported the activities of the PAC groups, and he appreciated their strong voice, and he consulted with them on education matters. However, anything to do with teachers or anything to do with curriculum was outside of the realm of what the parents could make decisions upon. So as long as the parents were willing to be consulted and have their voices heard, then that was fine, but they actually couldn't take on any roles within those areas. If we take away anything to do with teachers, and if we take away anything to do with the curriculum, I would like to put the question again to the minister: what role of partnership, then, do parents have?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member is confusing consultation with decision-making authority. What I meant. . . . I think I said it fairly clearly, that parents don't hire teachers. School boards hire teachers. Parents are surely well consulted on curriculum, as are teachers and a whole bunch of other partners. But at the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to set curriculum, set provincial exams and do a variety of other things that ensure that there's a high-quality curriculum right across the province.

Far be it from me to suggest that parents should, in any way, not be involved with teachers in a school. If they have concerns about the teacher or the instruction that their child is getting, they have every right to express those concerns -- initially, I would hope, to the teacher, to work out any difficulties that they may be having, and beyond that, of course, to express concerns to appropriate administrators or to appropriate agencies at the district level. I think most districts really respect that role of parents in issues surrounding teachers and the instruction they provide to their children. As I said, the Ministry of Education has actually funded a project on advocacy through the British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils to prepare parents for just such activities.

[1550]

J. Reid: I've been talking with parents who have been involved in the PAC groups and am voicing their frustrations with the way the system is working -- with the advocacy that they have. Certainly the parent is involved in the individual life of the child, and certainly their strongest role is in either

[ Page 13715 ]

I would like to reiterate that the parents have a deep level of frustration in not seeing that they can make real changes in the school system or have real influence in the broader scheme of things. I would ask that the minister take this into consideration and offer any suggestions that he might have today as to how this could be improved, because whether or not there are changes within our school system and the way we are developing curriculum on a broad base, it's leaving parents feeling very shut out of the process.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll say it again: we take the opinions of parents seriously. They're represented on the provincial education committee, and they don't sit apart from teachers or principals or superintendents; they're part of that group that works with senior ministry people on policy matters and advises me and government on policy matters in the education system. Their voices are heard. They sit on every major committee that the ministry sets up. We do try to listen hard to the views of parents.

[1555]

Finally, I think that at the district level I'm increasingly seeing the same sort of pattern that school boards try to have on matters of policy, whether it's around academic attainment, transportation, discipline or any number of policy issues at the district or school level. There may be variation in that around the province. I will say that the role of parent advisory councils in this province, unlike many others, is entrenched in the School Act itself. It's there as a matter of legal right, not as an option for schools. When I look at all that, I understand that at times parents would like a different or even broader role. But I would ask the member: what particular role or authority is she proposing for parents that is not now there? What authority is she seeking? Maybe we can have focus in the discussion if we have a specific authority that she is hearing parents wish to attain and that she is advocating for.

J. Reid: I believe that the discussion today is for me to ask questions of the minister concerning the estimates debate. I would be very pleased to take that up at another time in a broader discussion of where the role of parents could be expanded in the school system.

The decisions that the ministry makes, and certainly the budget decisions that the ministry makes. . . . For example, there was a discussion earlier about inclusion, and the parents from school district 68 who have special needs children came to me and said: "Yes, we are told that we can submit a brief and that they will consult with us." But so many people in the province have come to believe that in our system of consulting, which has been so inclusive, many groups are now very disillusioned by the whole process. They're saying: "Well, I'm being heard, but my suggestions aren't being acted upon." I think that's a larger issue that we need to deal with.

With this discouragement on the part of parents, I've noticed another trend in our area. It's an increasing lack of interest of people to take on the role of trustee. Increasing frustration, certainly, is what the trustees are expressing, and I'm sure it gets around the community. I go to meetings and hear them say that even though the ministry responds in many ways, they are restricted in their role, and therefore they just have to pass on to the parents: "Sorry, we can't do anything about that. Sorry, we can't do anything about that." So with the frustration of trustees and, certainly, with elections coming up as per schedule, does the minister have any thoughts on what's eroding the confidence in the position of school trustee or the desire of people to take on the position of school trustee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I'm getting even less sure of what issue the member is actually raising. On the one hand, she's saying that parents are frustrated because their voice is not heard. On the other hand, I think I heard her just say that they're getting consulted too much. Which is it? I need to understand this if I'm to respond in any way that is informative in Hansard.

[1600]

As far as trustees, I don't have an answer for the member. She says trustees are frustrated. Well, about the only thing that I guess I could say is that I don't see any easy jobs anymore in the area of running broad public institutions, whether it's the broad public education system or the health system, at the school district level or the health council level. These are difficult jobs. There is a high level of demand from the public for increasing improvements and sometimes concerns about whether all those needs can be met. Juggling those is difficult, I think, for people involved in public life, whether at the provincial or the school district level.

J. Reid: Yes, those are difficult jobs people take on -- very difficult. Sometimes the restrictions placed on them make them increasingly difficult.

[ Page 13716 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, back to the issue of frustrated trustees. The member says it's about restrictions. Well, again, which ones? What are the concerns? I mean, I have heard trustees advocate for the removal of targeting of funds. I have heard trustees advocate for the removal of a cap on administration expenses. If the member wishes to advocate for those, I'd be pleased to engage her in debate. Other than that, I'm not really sure which restrictions we're discussing here.

As far as private-public partnerships, yes, we are pursuing a couple of others. To my knowledge, there's a proposal being pursued for a school in the Richmond school district. Frankly, I think that our announcement a couple of weeks ago may well animate the discussion in a number of other districts about whether a private-public partnership is possible. Then, of course, there is the public-public-public-private partnership that's going on in the member's own riding with the administration of the municipality, the school board, the college and a housing development. So really, it's quite an innovative structure of how you put a variety of public interests together for the benefit of all.

[1605]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the case of the sort of capital projects that we see in the Abbotsford situation, you only need to look at the parameters of the deal to understand what some of the guidelines are. It's got to be a facility that's actually needed. It's a priority. It would normally be built and funded by the public purse. So this isn't queue-jumping in any way; this isn't an ability for something to muscle its way into the line. Second, there have to be savings for the taxpayer. That's true of the Abbotsford situation. From the analysis I've seen, it surely will be true of the project in the member's riding. Third, we've got to make sure that it meets the accounting criteria that your colleague and I were discussing. We hope to get clarified soon whether it's a capital or operating lease that actually makes it fit the criteria of the office of the comptroller general. Maybe we've got an accountant in the chamber who can help us. So we are going to continue to pursue those.

More broadly, though, on the partnership between public education and private interests, this is a difficult one. There are concerns in many quarters that we not turn our public school system over to private interests. I share the view that we ought to guard against that. I recently said a pretty loud no to an organization called the Youth News Network, which was proposing a partnership by which they would provide television monitors in classrooms. In exchange, they would receive the right to broadcast a news show of their making, along with commercials, in classrooms in the province every day. I said: "Well, I recognize the advantage here: equipment. But no, I don't want to see that sort of activity in our classrooms. I don't think that's a net benefit to the learning of students in the public school system."

We're working now. . . . Let me back up one more step. There are a variety of ways in which private agencies support public education virtually every week in school districts across the province -- everything from donating equipment to providing work placements for students and assisting in and being the venue for field trips. The private sector in British Columbia is wonderfully supportive of public education. That is the sort of assistance that we welcome greatly.

We are working right now on developing a set of guidelines to structure the consideration of the involvement of the private sector in the public school system. We've been working on that through PEC -- the provincial education committee -- involving teachers, trustees, parents and others in how we set some broad guidelines for where this should be encouraged and where we need to say no. We expect those guidelines to be in place for distribution by the fall.

[1610]

R. Coleman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Coleman: Seated in the gallery this afternoon are 53 grades 6 and 7 young adults from Dorothy Peacock Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Rempel, and some parents. Dorothy Peacock has the unique distinction of being adjacent to the new colossus that was opened in Langley a month or so ago.

I spent about 15 or 20 minutes out front on the steps with these young people. They had some very interesting and worthwhile questions, and I'd like to have the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to join in welcoming the students to the House. We happen to be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education today, so it might be of some applicability to what's going on in your school.

[ Page 13717 ]

D. Symons: Of course, the minister's aware that Richmond is greatly interested in public-private partnerships and trying to reduce the amount of expense of the school system through using that method. But one of the concerns that's been raised regarding school boards -- and particularly my school board; but others, I'm sure, have the same problem -- is the fact that when you go out to bid on a contract, you may get the lowest bid back from a contractor that that particular school board has had trouble with in the past -- either the work has not been up to standard or they've been slow in meeting deadlines and a variety of things. So they would rather not accept the low bid, because they know they aren't going to get proper value for their money out of that particular contractor. Or maybe a neighbouring school district has had experience with the contractor, and they now know that's not a contractor they wish to get involved with. How can we safeguard the school boards from this business of having to accept the lowest bid, when they know the lowest bidder may not be the best person to do the job?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises an interesting question. First, around private-public partnerships, I am aware that the Richmond district is interested and is pursuing one; I've just referenced that in our discussion earlier. I wish them well with it. I hope we can conclude one for Richmond, around Richmond Secondary.

[1615]

Occasionally we do run into this difficulty, particularly when you're building as many projects as we are -- some $923 million of capital construction that we've identified and announced in the last 14 months. There will be a few projects where a district might have difficulties with a contractor. Fortunately, in my experience so far, these are few in number. But when they do occur, it's obviously of great concern and distress to the school board involved and to the staff and students in the school.

D. Symons: There are a variety of ways in which the contractor may not live up to the expectations of the school board. One of them is in the quality of the work; the other I just mentioned is the possible disruption to the education that's going on in the building at the same time, particularly when a school is being renovated or expanded.

So you're basically saying that there is prequalification. From what the minister said, it sounded like prequalification is based primarily on their financial ability and bonding to carry out the process they're doing. Is it also based on consideration of their past performance? From what you were saying, I would assume that if complaints do come in, we can enact something like the Better Business Bureau, in a sense, where there can be a record kept and then eventually this person may not be allowed to bid on school contracts. Is that more or less what the minister was saying?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The prequalification here is not in government. This is run by the industry itself through the bid depository system. My understanding of it -- though this is, as I say, a long way from government -- is that they take their responsibilities seriously and, if there are complaints about performance of a contractor, seek to investigate. If there is found to be a problem there, they can take action, including removal from the list of qualified contractors to bid on a project.

D. Symons: I guess I was just a little confused when. . . . It's called a bid depository system, which I'm not familiar with. The depository made me think financial. I hope there's more to it than just that.

A couple of other questions, and you may find I'm going to go all over the map with the variety of questions I want to ask. The second revolves around the provincial collective agreement that was signed a while back and the consequences which that may have on a school district relating to its ESL programs. Now, if we take Richmond as an example -- just a nice example for me to take -- for the 1998-99 school year that's just about to come to an end, we have had 132 ESL teachers. There have been 9,700 identified ESL students -- that makes more sense -- giving us a ratio, then, of teachers to ESL students of 1 to 74.

If that number of identified students were, in one of the succeeding years, to drop, let's say, to 7,000. . . . Let's just say it drops a couple of thousand, as our enrolment in ESL has dropped in Richmond in the last year or so, due to less immigration into the area. If that were to drop to 7,000, the ratio would then become 1 to 53, but I'm told that, by the provincial collective agreement, that number of 132 ESL teachers would remain the same, even though the number of students had dropped. We would then have a ratio of 1 to 53, but then, if in some succeeding year the enrolment were to go up again, we would then be funded on the basis of 1 to 53. You'd then have to hire more ESL teachers to meet that ratio, if the student numbers were to go up.

[1620]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that the administration of a collective agreement and the funding of it are very important issues for a school board. I must say that Richmond has

[ Page 13718 ]

On a less happy note, perhaps, I have in front of me the preliminary budget for the Richmond school district, and I would like to report to the member that, in terms of funding that we've provided the district for ESL, the amount is $8.218 million. The amount that Richmond has chosen to allocate and spend on ESL is $5.5 million; $2.7 million is obviously being used for other purposes. Far from being a detriment to districts, the whole purpose of the collective agreement is to focus on providing equitable service to students, and then to provide the districts with the funding to do that.

D. Symons: I'm still not sure, though. . . . You're saying they're using money they receive for ESL for other than ESL. I'd still like to follow through, though, on the premise I was saying there that the provincial collective agreement was not one that, basically, the school boards set up. It was an agreement agreed to outside the school boards and the B.C. School Trustees Association. My concern is that you have certain funding agreements in there for ESL and one of the parts in that agreement was an ESL sort of statement on reduction of classes and things of that sort. The concern is: what's going to happen to the funding for those ESLs when the program ends? Will there be a guarantee that the level at the end of funding for ESL -- the ratio of teachers to students. . . ? Will that ratio be funded, after the end of two years -- or a better one, or a further agreement -- or are they simply going to be left with it, because when their students increase, they might be at a lower level of the ratio than before? Then they have to fund teachers on that lower ratio and possibly not get the same funding as they were getting prior to the end of that agreement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think early in these estimates I mentioned to the chamber that the BCTF and BCPSEA had reached agreement and had ratified some mid-contract modifications to the provincial collective agreement. Among the things that they agreed on was bridging language, which addressed exactly the issue that the member is talking about. That language provides that the funding provided under the provincial collective agreement for those teachers and that ratio continues past the expiry of the collective agreement until a new collective agreement is in place. I believe that addresses the issue the member is raising.

[1625]

I'm wondering if I might just discuss a few of the items that were raised at the annual meeting of the B.C. School Trustees Association. They passed a number of resolutions. One of them requested the Minister of Education to report to the school boards and the public on the ministry's internal administrative savings, made in connection with his February 1997 letter stating that a $12 million reduction in administrative costs would be possible. I'm wondering if the minister might tell us whether that internal administrative saving of $12 million has been achieved and if he'd be willing to pass on to the B.C. School Trustees Association how many savings were achieved and allocated in the short and long term. . .or how those savings were made, rather.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, those savings have been achieved. My staff do not have the actual numbers in the chamber, but I set out very clearly to carry through on my commitment when I looked at amalgamation and savings from consolidation of services -- to make sure the ministry was doing its part, as I was asking them to do theirs.

D. Symons: Another concern the trustees had was with the use of advertising by the ministry. They urged the minister to "desist" -- I'm just reading from the document here -- "from public advertising of government-related education activities; and (b) to provide the BCSTA with an accounting of the money spent on advertising education initiatives in general and, in particular, on promoting the teachers' agreement." It seems to be that last thing, I think, that might have been concerning them.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The provincial collective agreement and the class size reduction and improved ratios for non-enrolling teachers were a government initiative. I understand that the member opposed it and voted against it in this chamber. I thought that it was an entirely appropriate use of public funds to make the public aware of this government initiative, and we did so last year.

D. Symons: I guess that's where the opposition on this side and the school trustees are at one, and we are differing with the government on that particular issue.

A further one: "The BCSTA urges the Ministry of Education to obtain approval of the local electorate before it dismisses a trustee and/or eliminates a school board or district." I'm wondering if the minister might say. . . . Before you dismiss a school board -- and that came up earlier, I think, in regard to another district I was asking about earlier. . . . Before a school board or a trustee is dismissed, they urge you to obtain the approval of the local electorate. That basically says that the local electorate, not the Minister of Education, has elected that particular board, so they should be the ones who decide whether it should be dismissed or not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm a little confused by the wording of the resolution. Actually, I'm not sure I have any authority under the School Act to dismiss a particular school trustee for a district. I do have authority under the School Act to dismiss a board and put in a trustee. It's a power which is used only rarely by Ministers of Education. The only one I'm aware of in the recent past was the North Vancouver school district, back in '94, I think, or maybe '95, if memory serves. This is a power that's exercised very rarely by ministers, and I think it ought to be used very rarely and cautiously.

V. Anderson: I was listening earlier this afternoon when the minister was discussing inclusion. I heartily agree with the minister that inclusion is the way that we all wish to go, because that's for the benefit of all the children in the school system, and it means that no one is left out. Following up on that particular discussion, what I want to raise, using that principle, is about including services and facilities for students who are included in special needs and special education.

[1630]

[ Page 13719 ]

In the Vancouver system, as the minister is very much aware, they have a very high proportion, a high incidence, of students with special needs -- about 8 percent. At the present time they are trying to fund at least part of that under their own circumstances with funds used for that purpose, and they are in need of other funds for those children. I know that the minister has been negotiating and working on it, and I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update of where that situation is at the moment. I know that the total cost is about $9 million over and above what was currently allocated in order to meet the needs of those students.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There have indeed been a lot of discussions between the ministry and the Vancouver school board over the most recent budget -- an exchange of correspondence, and quite frankly, the pile of paper on my desk is getting a little high. I'm not sure I'm any the wiser about some of the decisions the Vancouver school board is seeking to make in the coming year, either in the area of reductions in budget for special education or in other areas.

I will only say this: we believe the funding formula does treat Vancouver fairly. I haven't seen evidence from the material brought forward by the board that would suggest otherwise. They do seem to have decided in past years to divert a considerable portion of money from other programs into special education. That is a decision of the board. The amount that we fund the board for special education actually continues to go up. In preliminary budget figures for Vancouver, the amount for targeted special education funds actually increased by $3 million this year.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could help me at least -- and maybe others -- to understand. Is the funding formula for the Vancouver school system for special education the same funding formula that's used for other places throughout the province? Or is there a funding formula that takes into account the particular nature of the needs of Vancouver being a central location -- as has been raised very often -- where it has facilities where people tend to come to Vancouver? It also has, as well as that, the highest level of people living in poverty, which compounds the problem, along with autism and alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome. All of those things -- as is shown in every other study in dealing with community services -- compound the number of people who come here, which is disproportionate to other locations or school boards within the province. Is there a different funding formula which takes those things into account, or is it an identical funding formula as for a place like Victoria, for instance, or for other cities in the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just a couple of points. First of all, we have heard exactly the argument the member puts forward from the Vancouver school board. I must say that we're not convinced that the evidentiary base is there to support this claim by the Vancouver school board. When we look at other areas of the lower mainland that do have the same sort of concentration of medical facilities and pockets of poverty and the like, we see no pattern that's significantly different from Vancouver.

[1635]

We continue to discuss this and other issues with the Vancouver board to try to ascertain the actual source of their budget difficulties and to see if there's some real way that I could explain to other school boards that Vancouver is being treated unfairly. As I've said repeatedly in these estimates, the purposes of the funding allocation system is fairness and equity, focusing on students. So far, I haven't seen Vancouver make a case that we're not treating them fairly or equitably. I have had a number of concerns raised by all sorts of people about the decisions the Vancouver board seems to be taking in the light of where it's chosen to announce reductions in service.

V. Anderson: I find it interesting that the Vancouver parents associations, the Vancouver teachers associations, both elementary and secondary, and the specialists within all of those associations who deal with these children on a regular basis, who are the professionals and to whom I presume the minister would be interested in listening to, along with the members of the Vancouver school board, are all consistent in their concern and in their presentation. I spent a whole evening -- two and a half hours -- listening to the variety of professional associations within the education system in Vancouver express their issues, and they asked for and found the opportunity to go as a combined delegation with the school board and the parents association to come and talk to the minister. So I'm curious if the minister is saying not only to the school board -- which perhaps is easy to do -- but also to the professionals in the field as well as to the parents in the community that all of them are wrong, all of them are mistaken, and all of them are putting forth false and misleading information to the minister.

I'm concerned, because these groups are working consistently and conscientiously, and all of them have delved into the statistics and the situation, and they're the ones who deal with these students -- the teachers particularly -- on a day-by-day basis, and they are all consistent with one message. It would seem to me that if there was inconsistency, and they were fighting among themselves, then I would have a different point of view. But when they're all consistent and working together. . . . So that's why I'm trying to arrive at. . . . Is there a misunderstanding as to the system that the minister and the Ministry of Education are using and the people and the professionals within the Vancouver system are using?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the entire issue of how special education needs are identified and reported, I would hope that many of the people that the member is talking to will seize the advantage offered by the special education review and put their views forward to the panel that's going to be reviewing issues around funding of special education in the province within this budget.

[1640]

[ Page 13720 ]

Here's the part that doesn't add up for me. The member talks about fetal alcohol syndrome, talks about the effects of poverty, talks about the effects of the ability of a child to learn. The provincial average for reporting of kids that have those difficulties in school districts is 2.55 percent -- just a little over 2-1/2 percent of all children in the province are reported by districts as having those sorts of difficulties. In Vancouver, it's actually lower -- 2.14 percent.

So in the face of all that, I must say that I continue to work with the board to find answers. I'm not sure I have the definitive one yet. I hope we can keep working on it.

I would say that in Vancouver, one thing is true. There are a substantial number of provincial services tailored to children with particular needs, and the member well knows this -- everything from Sunny Hill Hospital to Peak House, the G. F. Strong school program, the Canuck Place school program and the like. Those are funded outside the envelope of the Vancouver school board. They're funded directly through the program and shouldn't have any impact on the budget one way or another. Clearly Vancouver has a higher concentration of those provincial programs than other districts, and they are recognized and funded separately as provincial programs by the Ministry of Education.

I must say, though, that if you step a pace back and look at what's going on in the Vancouver school district, this is all about choices that the Vancouver school board has made and the way it has handled its budgets over several years. This is at least the third year in a row where we have had the Vancouver school board predicting huge layoffs of staff and dire consequences for education. This has become the pattern of their behaviour in the way they move forward in budget planning. Frankly, I think it's time that they stopped scaring parents. There is excellent education being provided in the schools of Vancouver, and I think that will continue to be the case in Vancouver.

This is the same school district that last December said that it was going to have to lay off 400 teachers and rearrange huge numbers of classes in the city right in the middle of a school year. Well, after a little work by an independent consultant, they found that there was no need to lay off anybody. This is the same school district that claims it's being hard done by on English as a second language. Yet when we audit what's going on in that school district, we find that it's claiming ESL funding from the province and identifying children as needing that service that are receiving no additional ESL services -- none, zero. Not only did they do it once, they've now done it at least three times by their own admission, by their own audit. In the most recent one that they reported to me, they reported: "Whoops! Over 1,200 students that we claimed ESL funding for we want to take off the rolls, because we're not actually giving them any service." There are some serious difficulties with how this school district is handling its funds. I must say that that seems to tinge the entire discussion about budgets with the Vancouver school board.

I have every sympathy for some of the parents and particularly some of the staff who find themselves faced with some of the decisions this board is making. As I've said very publicly, I'm not convinced that these are the best decisions, but they are the decisions that this board has the authority to make.

V. Anderson: Following up on the minister's comment, he talked about special education items that are funded outside the envelope. Is he including the 42 alternative school programs that are in Vancouver? Peak House is one of them. How many of these 42, of which Peak House is one on the list, are included in Vancouver, and how many of those are excluded from funding from the special envelope?

[1645]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Is that the total they got? It's better than I thought. They've benefited from the funding formula adjustments to the tune of $460,000 -- not $300,000 -- and yet this is one area that they seem to be deciding to reduce services in. I hope that answers the member's questions.

V. Anderson: Vancouver currently has four learning centres. Are those within the budget? Is there an allocation for those, or is that again a decision of the board? Jericho is one of those. There have been four special learning centres within Vancouver.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Are these centres for adults, or are these centres that provide education for kindergarten-to-grade-12 children?

V. Anderson: These are services for special needs children. I have letters from parents who have had their children there, and they have found. . . . The Jericho Learning Centre, for instance, is one. There are four of these kinds of centres that children have gone to and have had a significant improvement in their ability to get back into the educational system with new hope and possibility because of the effectiveness of these centres. I've had a number of letters from parents about these centres and the concern that they may not be able to continue those.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, Vancouver has made a number of decisions. I don't know the status of those particular centres. Let me just call to the member's attention that in the area of learning assistance for Vancouver, the ministry provides $8.5 million through targeted funds. The Vancouver school board has chosen to spend $7.7 million in that area. In the area of special health services, we provide the Vancouver school board with $2.3 million. It's chosen to spend $648,000 in that area. On the other hand, in the area of services for gifted children, we provide the Vancouver school board with $400,000. They've chosen to spend $1.4 million. This is about choices, hon. member. The Vancouver school board is within

[ Page 13721 ]

V. Anderson: Could the minister supply me with a list of the targeted areas -- he's listed some of them -- and the amount that is allocated for them and the amount that is spent on those? I understand there are eight targeted areas. Am I correct in that regard? He's missing some of them, but there are eight targeted areas.

[1650]

V. Anderson: I know the minister had a number of questions to the school board, and they responded. The minister came back with another set of questions as a result. Might I ask the minister where we are? What are the key questions that would be on that second list of concerns?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What we've been attempting to do, through correspondence with the Vancouver school board, is understand, as I say, whether they're being treated fairly and equitably. If there are areas where they're not receiving all that they should from the provincial treasury. . . . As I've said, there are a couple of areas where they've clearly benefited from the funding formula changes this year and others where they've been negatively impacted. We've identified some areas where we may be able to provide a little more assistance.

But frankly, we've also been seeking to ascertain what this district does with other sources of funding. Not to put it in any particular order. . . . From the information we have, they apparently get something like $3 million from international student revenues and spend about a third of that on services for those students. We're not quite sure where the other $2 million goes. There's a whole range of issues, frankly, like that.

We're satisfied that we've provided the level of resources that the Vancouver school board deserves when judged in relation to other districts. We're going to continue to work with them to try to find out if they're not being treated fairly and to identify sources of additional assistance where we can. Through our analysis so far, we've found roughly half a million dollars that they weren't even asking for and that they deserve, and they'll surely be getting that. But we surely have not found that they are in any way shortchanged to the tune of $5 million, which they seem to be requesting.

V. Anderson: Just so that I can understand the process, is this negotiation -- fair enough; that's what I call it -- taking place strictly by mail, or are there people from both sides sitting down and working it out face to face with that kind of involvement here?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is far more than an exchange of correspondence. My staff and the district staff meet and talk on the phone fairly regularly around this and a variety of other issues. I must say, though, that the characterization of this as a negotiation is not one I accept. I'm not in the process of negotiating with the Vancouver school board. I'm engaged in the process of making sure that they're being treated equitably and fairly with the other 58 school boards of the province.

V. Anderson: I wasn't trying to put the minister on the spot by using the word "negotiation." It was the one that came to mind. Might I ask the minister, then: what term would he use to describe the process taking place between the school board and the ministry? It would just be helpful to know the proper language when trying to enter into the conversation. I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said earlier -- and I'll try to highlight it here -- we're seeking a common understanding of the finances of the Vancouver school board between their officials and the ministry's and, as I said before, to identify any areas where the school board has not been treated fairly and equitably compared to other school boards in the province. If we find those areas, we'll rectify it. As I said, so far the only thing we've identified is the Vancouver school board actually not claiming around half a million dollars of money that they're entitled to. We'll keep working with them, but so far we have not identified sources of inequity or unfairness.

[1655]

In order to emphasize that, I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the wait-list in the Vancouver school system is for children needing assessment to understand what their need for service is. It's my understanding that the wait-list of children who are in need of assessment to find out what their problems are, so that they can be dealt with, has been there for a long time. And it's still there. It goes on for months and months, if not for years, and that's detrimental to the children themselves. That, to me, should be a top priority for school boards, for the ministry, for anybody involved -- to say: "Okay. Let's get the wait-list. Let's deal with it, and then we'll know exactly. . . ." Until the children are assessed, we aren't in a position to say what their immediate needs are. A month or six months can be very crucial in their lives.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I share the member's concern for the children and also for the parents and teachers who work with them and seek to provide them with a good education, whatever their needs are.

I don't have information on the specific wait times for assessment in the Vancouver school district. I suspect the district would have far more information on that than I. I would suggest that this, again, is one of the items that parents and professionals might wish to raise with the special education review team, because different districts seem to have very different ways of dealing with the issue of assessment and identification of the needs of children.

Finally, I want to assure the member that I don't regard this as a game -- in no way. This is serious for me. I want to make sure that the children in Vancouver are getting a good education. I want to make sure that the board is being treated fairly and equitably, and I'll continue to pursue that goal. I must say that some of the actions of the school board have not been very helpful at times, particularly when we find out through auditing processes that some of the information we've been receiving over many years has simply not been

[ Page 13722 ]

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's concern. I'm always interested, because I hear the minister saying that other people have not provided the accurate information to him; on the other hand, I hear from the other people that the same thing has happened -- that they have not got the accurate information or understanding from the ministry. It works both ways. I'm not concerned about who's right or wrong or who's doing the job and who isn't. What I am concerned about is that the children are not getting the services they need, and they're the ones who are suffering. It's not only for this month and next month, but it's suffering that they undertake for their whole lives.

[1700]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll be pleased to seek to provide any information that the member requests.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the critic and my colleagues for allowing me to take this little bit of time.

I know that my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove was asking questions of the minister last week, and I'm going to try not to duplicate any of those, because we do share the same school district.

There are a couple of questions I want to ask. But first of all, I want to say that we are very happy about and very grateful for the capital amounts and the capital program that we've received from the ministry this year. We've had quite a bit of money actually coming into the Langley school district. I will acknowledge that publicly and thank the minister very much, because we're getting $1.5 million for a couple of expansions. We're getting $2.25 million for extra renovations and upgrades and $2.7 million for a couple of pieces of property that we're going to use to build a couple of new schools -- some elementary schools. So I wanted to say that we are very appreciative of these capital funds.

There are a couple of issues that are fairly outstanding and long standing. One is that of low-bid, and the member talked about that a little bit earlier. It continues to be a problem. We have two particular contractors in Langley that have always come in with this low bid, and we've always ended up having huge difficulties with them. The project has always ended up costing more because of having to go back and redo. I know the minister knows that when you have to redo something, it usually costs twice as much as if it had been done right in the first place. Could the minister perhaps talk a little bit about what we can do to resolve that? I certainly would not be adverse to there being a list of contractors whose bids are simply not accepted unless they can demonstrate that they have in fact put forward credible bids. So I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I share the member's concern. In the discussion in the chamber previously, I think I informed the chamber that right now we have a system where essentially the industry sort of polices its own, through the bid depository system. I do hope that the Langley school district has, in vigorous terms, stated their concerns to the bid depository about the contractors that have simply not followed through with the quality that we would expect in this sort of a project and that have really caused additional costs or delays to be incurred on public projects.

That's what we have in place now. It is a self-policing system. I say that in a lot of cases it works well. We do have a standard 10 percent holdback on contracts, to try to ensure that there is some way to hold contractors accountable for getting the work done to the quality that is expected. Usually this works well; occasionally it breaks down.

Like the member, I've probably heard enough complaints about this that I'd like to explore other possibilities for dealing with it. But I have to, for this debate, inform the member that right now the mechanism in place is the self-policing system through the bid depository system. I do hope the Langley school board has formally and vigorously presented its concerns.

[1705]

The other issue around capital projects is project managers and the ability of the districts to hire project managers to build schools. They were not able to do that in the past without permission from the ministry. Is that still the same policy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of the circumstances in which good news sometimes creates problems. Langley's had $67 million worth of capital funding since 1992. That's a lot of money and a lot of projects to manage. Actually, staff informed me that it was because of concerns about management raised by the Langley school board and others -- back in 1992 or 1993, I think -- that the ministry actually changed its policy. They don't need our permission to hire a project manager, so I hope that the projects in Langley are well managed. I know that the children, parents and teachers appreciate decent facilities to teach and learn in.

L. Stephens: We have a very well managed district, and I'm sure the minister knows that. Our projects do go along quite nicely. But that was a problem -- being able to hire project managers to make sure that projects were completed on time.

The operating budgets for the school district are a different matter. What it has meant this year was an initial deficit of $1.93 million for the operating budget for 1999-2000. Where the board has, in the past -- in 1995-96 and '96-97 -- dealt with budget deficits, last year was the first year that they were able to come up with a balanced budget without having a deficit. This year they do have a $1.93 million deficit. They've

[ Page 13723 ]

Langley is a very resourceful community and a very resourceful school district. The PAC groups have been able to do a lot in terms of fundraising for the schools. In many cases it's the PAC associations that have been able to come up with the money for playground equipment, uniforms, windows -- in two classrooms, actually; they even paid for two windows in a classroom -- and all kinds of classroom supplies that are normally funded from the district budget.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about where this is all going to end. What we've been able to do in Langley is. . . . They're really at the bare bones now. It's cutting into the school programming quite seriously. Band programs and libraries are cut. Teacher assistant time is cut. What we need to do is to have some sense of when the school districts are going to be able to count on some kind of funding that will go year by year at a 1 percent, 2 percent or 3 percent lift for the school districts. Can the minister comment on that?

[1710]

Their funding has grown over that same period by 24.4 percent, nearly twice the rate of increase in the number of kids. Far from a lesser budget this year, Langley has a bigger budget than it had last year. If more kids show up than they've anticipated, as the member knows, we'll recalculate and provide more money to make sure that every child who shows up is fully funded in Langley or elsewhere.

I understand that it's always difficult to budget wants and budget realities in all areas of public sector spending, but I must say that I reject the notion that we are underfunding education in this province. Districts have been provided with the highest per-student funding of any province in the country. We are not asking districts to shut down schools, as they are in Ontario. We are not laying off 700 teachers and increasing class sizes, as they're doing in Alberta this year. We continue to fund education and increase the amount of money to cover inflation, to cover enrolment and to cover contractual expenses. Frankly, we've led the initiative around such things as class size reduction to make sure that we're improving the quality of education in British Columbia.

Langley, like other districts, makes choices about where it puts the money that is allocated by the ministry. In some cases, as your colleague presented to the chamber, those caused concern among parents and staff.

L. Stephens: The issue that I hear time after time after time is the lack of flexibility in the targeting of funds. I know this is true in a lot of the districts around the province -- whether or not there can be more flexibility in the funding to the districts.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The big areas of targeting funding are, of course, special education, aboriginal education and then a cap on spending on administration. Both the school trustees and the ministry have said that any removal of the cap on aboriginal education would be a bad idea, and the BCSTA actually passed a resolution to that effect last year, I think -- not this year.

In the area of the administrative cap, I think it's entirely appropriate that we ask school districts to live within a finite amount of money devoted to administration. As far as special education, as we discussed earlier, I think that most school districts -- maybe all of them -- actually exceed the amount of money they spend on special education compared to that which is targeted.

So boards do have a lot of discretion on other areas. Sometimes they make choices, as I just said to your colleague from Vancouver, that the ministry or members of the Legislature or other interested parties might not think are the right ones. But they are the locally elected body charged with designing the delivery of education at a district level.

In my discussion with your colleague, I pointed out that I really did hear the concerns around learning assistance from a number of schools. But I had to say to him, as I will to you, that this is a decision that the district made. In terms of how we allocated funding, they got around $2.966 million for learning assistance; they've chosen to spend $2.32 million. Well, okay, that's their decision, and I'm sure there are parents and teachers and others that might be concerned about that decision.

[1715]

The board was going to be asking the minister to recalculate transfer grants and custodial costs to the tune of $147,000. The district believes that those calculations weren't accurate and that the ministry owes the district $147,000 in transfer grants and custodial costs. Is the minister aware of that? And if so, has this been resolved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member's quite right. A large percentage of education budgets are spent on salaries and benefits. Education is a people business. I don't think we want to be running an education system where only 50 percent is actually spent on hiring the people that work with our children every day, though I recognize that some districts feel really caught by the small amount of money they spend in areas other than salaries.

As far as the issue of custodial costs and other matters, this is really pretty much a matter of just straight calculation

[ Page 13724 ]

L. Stephens: I will follow up with the district and see whether or not that will be resolved.

The last issue that I want to talk about is technology. I know the minister is very keen, as we all are, to get computers and technology knowledge into the classroom. The criticism that I'm hearing is that there isn't a curriculum. There really isn't a business plan for that, and there isn't training for teachers. So it's all fine and well to talk about computer technology and computer literacy, but. . . . It's making sure that not just the hardware but also the training for the teachers in order to teach it are there, that there is a business plan involved and that there's a curriculum. Could the minister inform the committee what that's involving?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I just want to maybe correct a couple of things that the member said. There are indeed curriculum goals for information technology. As the member knows, each subject has what's called an IRP -- an integrated resource package. Computer literacy and computer information systems are included as a cross-curricular activity right across the curriculum, and there are also specific instructional resource courses in information technology. So this is an area where we sought to set out what the learning goals, the suggested activities and the resources should be.

[1720]

Where I want to say that I absolutely agree with the member's analysis here is. . . . In the first technology plan -- which was actually introduced by my predecessor, Mr. Charbonneau -- we focused pretty intently on how we got the physical resources into the schools to make information technology learning a reality. We had a five-year plan to make that happen. Last spring I announced another one -- hooking up everybody to the Internet through the provincial learning network -- again, focusing pretty much on the backbone that you need to make access to the resources of the Internet available in schools throughout the province.

I'm awaiting the report of the committee I struck to talk about what the next steps should be, and then we'll be discussing that report broadly with the education system. My guess is -- and it's a guess at this point, though I've spent enough time in schools talking to teachers and parents and principals and the like that I think I'm pretty sure of this -- that the focus for the next while will be on exactly the issues that the member raises. Okay, we have the Internet; we can log on. How are we going to use it in our curriculum? What's the software and resources that are available? Where does it fit in? What are the best practices in use of this technology, not just as a curiosity but in advancing learning for our children?

The second issue that I suspect will be there will be the area not of hardware or software but, as the techies say, the humanware -- the people. Do we have teachers that are up to speed on how this can be used? Do we have the right technical support in place, so we can really make this part of learning for our children?

I must say to the member that she's quite right. I take this part of my portfolio very seriously. I have a lot of interest in it personally, for a lot of reasons. I guess the primary one is -- if you'll indulge me -- that the great goal of the public education system has been to provide some sort of equity for all children, regardless of the background of their family -- no matter where they live, what their family's income is, what their economic circumstances are. They should have equitable access to learning resources and to acquisition of skills that they can then apply to earn a good living and participate in society fully.

In the information age, surely part of that has to be access to and knowledge of how to use information technology. I am very concerned that without public school involvement and leadership in that area, we have a distressingly high chance of creating a form of technological apartheid. Children from families that have financial resources -- frankly, like mine; I went out and bought a microcomputer in the late 1970s, when it was still a very strange thing to do -- will have advantages that others might not. I don't find that acceptable.

I think that one of the real goals we have to have in the public school system is to try to provide some sort of equity and access to those information technology resources, because it is going to be a part of our children's lives. They are going to use this, both in acquiring an education and pursuing a career. And darn it, we should provide them the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of that in the public school system.

[1725]

I would like to ask the minister if, when that report is ready, he would in fact make it available to the opposition, so we can follow along what is happening with the technology programs in the school. It would be much appreciated. I thank the minister for his comments.

B. Barisoff: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Barisoff: On behalf of my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton, I'd like to welcome to the precinct today a class of grade 7 students from Holy Cross Elementary, along with their teacher, Mrs. M. Nowak. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to provide the opposition with that study. Then we will be embarking on a much larger consultation with the partners in the education system about how we move forward in the next steps to make technology and access to it a reality in our schools.

B. Barisoff: I have a few questions for the minister. Boundary school district has some great concerns about the

[ Page 13725 ]

My concern is the fact that this is one the districts that was amalgamated; Grand Forks and the Boundary country were amalgamated. And when they did the numbers, when they calculated the numbers for the people that they have to lay off this year, it works out to around $711,000. If the districts were separated, that's exactly the difference that they would have had today. My concern is the effect it'll have on this small school district, in a particular rural area of part of British Columbia -- that they'd be forced to a situation where they're laying off all their library aides and at least 13 full-time-equivalent teachers' assistants, and the effect that'll have. Could the minister tell me what's happening there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope the member would agree with me that what has happened in the Boundary district in terms of having to curtail staff is almost entirely due to a decline in enrolment that the district is projecting. After significant growth in the district in the first half of the decade -- sometimes rather rapid growth of 3 to 5 percent a year -- for the last four years now, there has been a net decline in enrolment in the district. Actually, from a peak of, I think, 2,250 students in '95-96, the district is now looking at a number down around 2,156 -- a decline of, I guess, 100 students; around a 5 percent decline. So even while we've been able to increase the amount of funding per student and increase it again this year for Boundary, the overall effect on the school district, because of that decline in enrolment and their projection of a 3 percent drop in enrolment for the coming fall, has meant they had less funds.

Frankly, this is a difficulty for districts that are faced with declining enrolment. As you know, last fall I tried to assist some districts that had planned more optimistically than the event proved and had fewer students enrol -- some sort of a transition grant. I think Boundary and other districts are trying to plan extremely conservatively this year to look at how many kids might actually show up.

[1730]

B. Barisoff: I guess it's like a catch-22. When those small areas start to lose people and lose jobs, they end up losing students. I guess my concern goes back. . . . I wonder whether the minister could check this out and tell me: if the districts weren't amalgamated -- if Boundary wasn't amalgamated with Grand Forks -- what would the difference in the funding be today versus what they're actually getting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that figure in the chamber. Let me say that obviously it would be higher because they would have two superintendents and two secretary-treasurers -- two of a whole bunch of functions that amalgamation has enabled us to reduce. I mean, that was the entire purpose of amalgamation. And yes, they receive less money for those essential functions now than they would have had as two unamalgamated districts. I must say that they receive, as I said, and have continued to receive an increase in the amount of money per student. You know, I guess that's the positive news in there.

But on another tack, I fully sympathize with the difficulties of smaller communities that are faced with a decline in enrolment and then have to look at reducing services in the public education system. But when you look at equity and fairness, it's very difficult to find a rationale for funding empty classrooms. If the kids aren't there, how do you justify hiring a teacher? If the children aren't there, how do you justify providing money for services? At the end of the day, the funding formula is based primarily on students and their needs, whether those needs are for special education, English-as-a-second-language training or in districts like Boundary for things like transportation and heating maintenance in excess of what you might find in an urban area.

B. Barisoff: I guess the comment I have when I look at equity and fairness is that, when we went into the amalgamation process, the minister indicated in this House that smaller rural districts would not be affected. I think that now, after a few years, we're starting to see that they are being affected. If by chance these weren't amalgamated, according to the figures that I've got they would be generating another $711,000, and they wouldn't be having to lay off all these people. As they lay off all these people, of course, more and more people are leaving, looking for work.

The snowball keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and what's going to happen with some of the smaller areas, particularly in the Boundary, is that next year they're going to end up losing more students, because parents are going to have to go elsewhere looking for jobs. I think that the constituents and the people from the Boundary country, particularly Midway, Greenwood, Rock Creek and Grand Forks, will take little comfort in what the minister is saying -- that they are being treated fairly and equitably -- because I don't think they are. When amalgamation took place they ended up losing out.

I know that ultimately I'm not going to win this battle, but I thought it should be brought forward. Losing all your library aides and losing all your teachers' assistants will soon bring the wrath of the parents, particularly in special ed, upon the minister. They will be coming down on him, because they were quite concerned before.

Moving on to another question, then. . . . It's a question that I actually called the minister on -- not because he didn't call back; he did. It's just convenient to ask the question right now. In the Okanagan-Similkameen district, Osoyoos Secondary School has two or three additional classrooms that are supposedly on the go. What I was told by the chair, Mrs. June Harrington, on the weekend was that all they're waiting for is for the minister to say yes. As soon as he signs off, they can get these underway. They'd like to do that as soon as possible so that they could have them ready by the fall.

[1735]

[ Page 13726 ]

On the broad issue of funding, these are. . . . I think I've tried in these estimates to be both compassionate in terms of recognizing the difficulties that boards face, particularly those that have a decline in enrolment. . . . This is difficult. I must say on the issue of amalgamation that the goal always -- always -- was to enable the reduction of administrative overhead both in districts and in the Ministry of Education, and to take a significant amount of money out of those areas and put it into the rest of school operations. The member is quite right that, if these two districts existed as separate districts, they would receive more money for the administration required to run two school districts than they would for running one. I must say that the member is wrong in thinking that there'd be more money for actual allocation for students in classrooms. This is primarily a student-based funding allocation system which talks about the number of students, their needs -- whether it's special education, ESL or aboriginal, the equipment for them, new programs, Internet hookups and the like. It is primarily a student-based funding system.

The board has had some difficult decisions. It has chosen to make them in some areas, as the member says, and that has created some consternation in the community. But those are the decisions that the board has made.

B. Barisoff: I do appreciate the fact that it's a difficult situation, but I also do know, from the many years that I spent on school boards, that those decisions are difficult to make no matter how you make them. I guess when you get to smaller communities, particularly the districts of Midway and Greenwood, they'll probably see the worst part of that effect come through. It's little comfort to them to see them basically deteriorating when they can't maintain the amount of money, and it would make a difference. . . . I would ask the minister if there's a possibility that he could look into it and find out whether, if it's directly student-funded, it wouldn't have had an effect based on two school districts but it would have had an effect somehow. . . . Take the administration and a superintendent away, and there's not a lot more that you can take away from the original school district the size of Boundary. That represents maybe in the neighbourhood of $100,000 or so. There's got to be a lot more money there somewhere -- money that wouldn't be administrative, if they're telling me that it equates to the same $710,000.

Getting off that again, I'd like to ask one more question: where is the status of Osoyoos Elementary School right now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, if the member has figures from the school district or if the school district has written directly to the ministry about this issue of amalgamated versus unamalgamated funding, we'll seek to reply to them.

On the issue of Osoyoos Elementary, staff have informed me that this project is on track. They should be completing schematic drawings this month. They anticipate going to tender early in the fall and getting construction underway in late '99, and they anticipate a January 2001 opening.

B. Barisoff: I might have missed it, but just one last question on the classrooms for Osoyoos Secondary. When will they be able to go ahead? I think they're quite concerned and want to make sure that they have them ready by September 7. Is there a particular date that they'll have approval to start moving?

[1740]

C. Hansen: I have two issues that I want to raise with the minister. The first is concerning portables and the formula that's used to determine whether or not a school is eligible to add portables. I know that the big news these days is getting rid of portables, and certainly the minister announced it with lots of fanfare, along with the Premier.

As I understand it, the problem in Vancouver is that the formula that's used to determine eligibility is based on the number of square feet in a school per student that is there. One of the difficulties that we have in many of the Vancouver schools is that because they are older, they are schools that have very wide hallways compared to some of the modern constructions; they have basements; they have space that is essentially unusable for education purposes in a direct sense, yet it gets factored into these formulas. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us whether or not this has been reviewed in any way and whether there's any prospect of having those formulas changed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a rare occurrence in the Legislature when an MLA stands up to argue that their schools need more portables.

Let me just say -- kidding aside -- that this is an issue that arose between the ministry's planning branch and Vancouver school board about three years ago. The district actually had a consultant working on it so that we could identify how to measure accurately the capacity of some of these older schools, because it's a real issue. I think the member is quite correct. Our impression -- at least the impression of the officials in the ministry -- is that this is an issue that has been resolved. We surely have not heard anything from the Vancouver school board lately that suggests we're not properly taking account of some of the larger classrooms in the older school buildings that they have in district 39.

[1745]

I agree with the minister that portables are certainly not a desirable way to teach children. I think anyone that's involved in education, whether it's at the provincial government level, the school board level or the school administration level, is obviously working hard to try to do what they can to eliminate portables and to avoid the necessity for them.

The second issue I want to raise with the minister is one of seismic upgrading for schools. As a parent said to me:

[ Page 13727 ]

We certainly have schools in Vancouver -- and my understanding is there are schools in the capital regional district as well, in Victoria -- that are in need of seismic upgrading in order to ensure the safety of children. Yet the policy of the ministry is that when there are dollars to be allocated for capital spending, those dollars cannot be allocated toward stand-alone seismic upgrading. I'm just wondering if the minister, in view of some of the growing concern about this, is willing to reconsider the policy change that was made in 1994.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is correct. That is the current policy of the capital division in the Ministry of Finance, which really monitors policy on broad capital construction in the public sector and oversees it. I would say that over the last eight years or so, we have probably spent something like three-quarters of a billion dollars on renovating older schools, including the ones in Vancouver. That has involved bringing them up to code on all issues, and seismic is one of those.

The requirements of building codes around these issues have changed over the years, obviously, as we understand more fully what the issues are around earthquakes and potential damage. I will say to the member that this policy is under review as we talk. I hope we have some conclusion to that and some ways of moving forward on this issue in the near future.

B. Penner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in these Education debates. I don't have too many issues to canvass. I would like to, however, check with the minister on the status of two proposed school projects in Chilliwack. I've been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about Evans Elementary School. This is a two-classroom main building that also has six portable classrooms, housing a total of 250 students at the school. The majority of students have to attend classes in portables.

I understand that the design for the project was approved by the Ministry of Education back in 1997 but that the rules for construction changed along the way, particularly the rules relating to the space allocated for particular functions and the dollars allowed per square foot of construction. The school district, after the approval was initially given in 1997, went out and purchased an adjacent lot. Right now they're urgently awaiting approval to allow this project to go to tender, because the school district wants to have the new school ready by September 2000.

At present, parents tell me that students are being bused to one of the oldest public buildings in Chilliwack, the Atchelitz Hall, in order that they may attend physical education classes. I'm also told that the library is substandard in size. I wonder if the minister can give us an update as to the status of this project.

[1750]

B. Penner: A proposed school, which doesn't exist yet in any form, is anticipated in a new area known as Promontory Heights. This would be an elementary school to service an area of about 2,000 residents. At present students are being bused from this neighbourhood to a school which is already over capacity. There's been some controversy in Chilliwack lately about parents not wanting their children to be bused further away from home than they think is necessary.

This new school is intended to house 350 students. I'm told that the municipality of Chilliwack has approved $400,000 by way of a contribution, because the plan is for 400 square metres of space in the new school to be allowed for community use. The school district started the planning process. I'm told that $40,000 was spent for a hillside site-specific design by an architect from the Fraser Valley. However, in April the project was stopped on the direction of the Ministry of Education.

Apparently word came down that the school district had to consider whether stock plans could be used in the construction of this new school. The school district has told me that three out of four architects have said that the answer to that question is no. The school site is located on a hillside, whereas the stock plans don't anticipate a school being built on anything other than a level surface. In addition, I'm told that the stock plans don't incorporate community use components already paid for by the district of Chilliwack.

I'm also told that this project needs urgent approval if it is to be completed in time for occupancy in September of 2000. I wonder if the minister can give people in Chilliwack an update as to whether or not the school district will be allowed to complete site-specific designs so that they can proceed with this project.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will have my staff check in with the Ministry of Finance as to where this is in the work they do, working with the district and getting the school built to make sure it is on track. Obviously, if stock plans are not appropriate, they won't be used. On the other hand, I think members of this chamber know that I've been seeking to reduce the cost of capital projects in the schools area by using stock plans where they do fit. So I'll undertake to make sure the member gets that information and can relay it to the folks in Chilliwack.

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

[1755]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 13728 ]

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

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

THE NEW ECONOMY

When we speak of the economy, I believe that most British Columbians still associate that with the traditional forestry, mining and construction industries, with their high-paying, family-supporting wages. These are the industries in which 30 or 40 years ago, young people graduating from high school and even dropouts were able to easily find jobs and earn a good living with relatively few skills.

Today, unfortunately, that is not the case any longer. Technology and the global marketplace have crept in on those sectors, lowering demand and causing considerable job losses. In the nineties, British Columbia and most of the world are experiencing a tremendous shift in their economies. Agrarian economies are changing to manufacturing economies; manufacturing economies are transforming into information economies; and traditional resource-based economies like ours are still surviving decently well but are slowly giving way to a newly emerging economy based on high-tech, tourism and film production as is our case.

As I said earlier, I want to concentrate on the high-tech sector. I want to show how it has grown in recent years, and I want to talk about what this government has done to stimulate this sector, if time allows.

I want to start by giving some important data to show how high-tech businesses have grown faster than any other businesses in B.C. in the nineties. For example, in the last three years alone this province has seen a growth of 46 percent, to 6,800 high-tech businesses employing more than 46,000 people. I repeat: 46,000 people -- a phenomenal employment growth of 61 percent since 1991, which is nearly twice that of any other province in Canada. It's comparable to growth in Oregon, which seems to be touted by the opposition as the jurisdiction that we should be emulating.

[1840]

Total revenue from the high-tech sector surpassed $5 billion for the first time in 1997, reaching $5.2 billion, and it is growing at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent a year. The high-tech sector's gross domestic product grew nearly 9 percent in 1997 to $2.7 billion, and exports of high-tech goods, such as aerospace and pharmaceutical, and services such as engineering and biomedical grew 26 percent to $766 million in 1997 alone. These are great statistics, but there is more.

The high-tech industry is experiencing incredible growth in every region of this beautiful province of ours. Even though the lion's share of new high-tech establishments is found in the greater Vancouver region, with over 4,431 companies, there is considerable growth in every part of the province. Greater Victoria, for example, has seen a growth of about 15 percent a year in high-tech businesses, from 576 to 709 since 1994. The Thompson-Okanagan region has become the third-largest high-tech centre in the province with 632 companies, a 53 percent increase since '94.

The Okanagan Science, Technology and Innovation Council expects even faster growth in the next three years. The Cariboo region has nearly doubled its number of high-tech businesses since '94. They've gone from 127 to 217, a 71 percent increase. Even the Kootenays and the north have had their fair share of growth in the field, with an increase in businesses of 76 percent and 97 percent respectively. It is clear that there is a story to tell here, which would be even better if I had time to talk about the other two components of the new economy: tourism and the film industry, both of which make great use of high-tech.

Unfortunately, I have to close by saying that Burnaby, and my constituency in particular, has become a favourite area for high-tech establishments. I want to mention only two of the success stories in my riding. One is the world-renowned Electronic Arts, which specializes in electronic games. It employs 600 workers and is continually expanding. The other is a relatively new small company, which I visited some three weeks ago. It is called InfoTouch Communication Systems. It employs 30 people and is already looking to expand into a larger facility still in my riding. This small company makes Internet touch screens and booths for placement in travel areas -- such as stations, airports, ferries and cruise ships -- as well as in places of leisure such as cafés and pubs all over the world. InfoTouch -- a small company, as I said -- will surpass the $1 million mark in sales this year. According to its young manager-owner, it expects to reach $5 million in about two years. I want to wish them the best.

I see that the red light is on, hon. Speaker. I look forward to the reply from the opposite side.

[1845]

[ Page 13729 ]

I'm not convinced that the members opposite understand that concept. I think they are benefiting from the individuals who indeed make those contributions and do so on a regular basis. I'm incredibly proud of the industry. When they came together at the annual TIA dinner a few nights ago to honour the best and the brightest in this province, I was incredibly proud of the contributions those individuals make. As a province we need to ensure that the best and the brightest, who we currently educate, actually have the opportunity to be employed in this province. There's no doubt about that.

There is great technology; there are great industries. But there are many, frankly. . . . I'll cite an example from my riding: Arterial Vascular Engineering, which is a heart valve company with 400 jobs. Those jobs are going to Ireland, because they did not find the receptivity they needed in this province to prosper here today. Those are significant issues, and those are issues that my colleagues have brought before this Legislature many times. We will continue to do so. Those are issues about believing enough in the graduate schools in this province to indicate to those grad students, whether they be at the masters or PhD level, that indeed they can apply the skill sets they have acquired in this province to benefit this province -- whether it be at the TRIUMF research centre at the University of British Columbia, at research laboratories found in a variety of businesses or in Salmon Arm.

The example I want to cite is Newens Machine Ltd. in Salmon Arm. Those people understand how best to provide employment that's durable. The future is about high technology. The last century was about information technology; the next century will be about biotechnology. This is about durable employment opportunities. What must be completely understood is that those are very mobile employment opportunities. Those jobs can be done in British Columbia as easily as they can be done in Atlanta, Georgia. So we have to ensure that British Columbia attracts and keeps the best and the brightest. There is very little we can do in the current situation in this province today to suggest that free enterprise is alive and well, that there is a true commitment to the entrepreneurial spirit. Frankly, it's not evidenced by the members opposite.

I am absolutely in support of the notion of free enterprise, of ensuring that people understand free enterprise. That is what it's about in terms of somebody taking their idea from the laboratory to the marketplace. I will speak very highly in favour of the university-industry liaison offices, which work. Natalie Dakers at UBC takes brand-new scientists with their ideas and puts in place a process that allows them to take that product to the marketplace. That is what's important about the agencies we have today, which pull together to prosper and to foster those ideas.

This needs to happen and will be the deciding factor in terms of whether or not this province prospers into the next century. They will be durable jobs, they will be sophisticated jobs, and there will be opportunities for people to come and provide solutions. Whether we're talking about a new response to Alzheimer's research or a new cure for cancer, those things will be kindnesses to families who today provide enormous levels of care to family members suffering from the diseases. The answers to those questions will be found in basic research. So it's commitment on behalf of this province.

I will also suggest that the pharmaceutical companies of British Columbia have done some great things in terms of making contributions to something like Children's Hospital -- Merck Frosst, $15 million to research programs at Children's Hospital to answer the very pressing questions people have around research that makes sense for people's lives. It's about bettering people's lives.

That's what high technology is about. It's about providing solutions so that people's lives and livelihood can be somewhat assisted or improved, whether it be a research question in the forest, a better application in silviculture or a different type of resource extraction. Those issues need to be addressed more fully by this government.

P. Calendino: Only this Liberal opposition can find things that are negative in a sector which has growth that is better than any other province in this country. I expected this negativity. I expected that they would respond by saying that B.C. is not doing enough to retain the best and the brightest in this province so that the high-tech sector can grow.

Let's make sure that they tell the whole story. This government has been assisting companies to remain in this province, and there are examples like Conair, Western Star and CP engine repair at the airport. These people stand up and say that some companies are leaving for Ireland, because we are not providing enough incentives. Well, they should be making up their minds. Do they want this government to assist companies, or do they want us not to? Let's have a clear policy from that side.

[1850]

Interjections.

P. Calendino: I'm ad-libbing here.

Let me also remind them that we have cut personal taxes, and we have cut the high marginal taxes for individuals with high incomes. This is what the opposition has been asking,

[ Page 13730 ]

Let's remember that the policies of this government have encouraged companies like IBM to invest in this province and have encouraged companies like Ericsson Communications to move from Calgary to British Columbia.

FOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBOURS

This is part of a long tradition we've had in Canada -- first with the aboriginal people and then with the non-aboriginal -- of helping out neighbours in times of need, in difficult circumstances. I can remember that in the thirties when I was growing up on the prairies, there were the homes that had a mark on a gate or a door-post, because of those who travelled through looking for work. There were certain homes where they were welcome. They would come, and perhaps they'd cut wood or perhaps they'd do nothing, but they would be fed because they were neighbours.

[1855]

Neighbours helping neighbours is a hallmark of our society. But this was to be a temporary venture. It has become, unfortunately -- right across our country, as around the world -- almost a permanent fixture. We need to continue to help our neighbours, and it's good that we will help. But it's deplorable that the circumstances are there and that a third of those receiving help each week are children. I estimate that there are 400,000 people in this province who go to bed hungry every night; 10 percent of our population goes to bed hungry every night. As much as we are attempting to do through the food banks across the province, we're only meeting, at the most, 10 percent of the needs of those people. It's a process which has continued to get worse and worse, and we haven't found an answer yet.

Very quickly, in the mail people will get a brown paper bag with this kind of printing on it: "The Food Bank's Christmas in July." Traditionally, the food bank began in December over Christmastime, because people had the feeling that they would share. Every Christmas the amount of food swells, but by spring and summer it's gone again. For over ten years now the food bank has put out its brown paper bags, so that neighbours across the province can fill them and leave them at the collection depots. In many places it's at the fire station, the stores or the library. There are many places where it can go, and it goes back into the collection system.

Neighbour helping neighbour is what our community is about. But as good as this is in helping each other, we must work together to find solutions so that 400,000 people in this province -- at this time, in this land of wealth and prosperity for many -- do not have to go to bed hungry at night, particularly our children. Their whole future is ahead of them, and that famine, if you like, which they face in their lives stunts all of their promises and all of their futures.

I want to give thanks to those who have worked so hard to respond to their neighbours. I want to thank Sylvia Russell, who started the food bank program as the first executive director, and those who took over from her and the present food bank executive director, Pat Burns. They work on behalf of and with the thousands of volunteers across this province, and they're bolstered by the wholesalers, the retailers, the sports groups, the radio stations and the individuals who help out to make neighbour helping neighbour a reality.

[1900]

Food is something that we gather around. It's the focus of almost every celebration in our lives. It's a way we show hospitality; we offer food as a mark of our hospitality. It's a very concrete way of helping out in a crisis or sharing with a friend or a neighbour. Making sure that all people have the resources to feed, clothe and shelter themselves is a principle that I'm sure all members of this House share. But tonight I'm speaking to those people who do not have the means to make sure they have enough food for themselves, let alone to share.

Never have the disparities between the rich and the poor been greater, and the challenge of government is to work to improve the quality of life for all people. On April 11, 1997, after twice introducing a private member's bill on a very similar theme, the members of this House honoured the principle that all should have the right to food by unanimously passing the Food Donor Encouragement Act. The act reduces the liability for those who donate food in good faith, to provide food that would otherwise be wasted while ensuring that those who receive the food are being protected as well.

The greater Vancouver Food Bank -- which is, of course, the largest in this province -- finds that this legislation is particularly helpful to the Food Runners program, which collects the food from restaurants, hotels, caterers and institu-

[ Page 13731 ]

One other way of distributing food in a community is community kitchens. I find this a very interesting and positive aspect of food distribution. Community kitchens are formed by a group of people who get together on a regular basis to cook and eat together or to cook and bring meals home. The benefits of this community kitchen include learning new recipes, making low-cost meals, building community around food and saving time by cooking large quantities. Food is not just sustenance; food is also an experience of sharing. The experience of building community around food is a very important one indeed.

To support the endeavours of food banks and to increase the quality of food distributed to recipients, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's B.C. Sharing initiative provides a simple way for consumers to support B.C. food banks with B.C. food products. B.C. Sharing started in October 1997 with 30 supermarkets on Vancouver Island. For those of us who shop in the Victoria area, we see these little coupons on a regular basis. Presently it's a provincewide program, and the B.C. Sharing coupons are available in 200 stores. The Sharing coupons come in $2 denominations at the checkouts of local grocery stores. Between October 1997, when this initiative began, and March 31, 1999, B.C. Sharing has collected $1.2 million in donations. These contributions go directly to the members of the B.C. Association of Food Banks, who then use the money to buy food that's grown and processed in British Columbia.

Hunger is only one aspect of poverty. We're doing more to alleviate poverty in the province and curtail the demands on food banks. I can't emphasize how important this is. It is very important that all citizens in British Columbia have the means to provide shelter, housing and food for themselves. British Columbians recognize the long-term negative impacts of poverty on individuals, on families and on communities. We've taken a multifaceted approach to provide both direct payments to reduce the depth of poverty and programs that mitigate the impact of poverty.

Affordable and stable housing is a key element in this war against poverty. B.C. is one of only two provinces in this country which continue to fund new social housing. You will see that social housing is an important initiative that was announced in today's papers.

[1905]

V. Anderson: I wish to thank the member for Comox Valley for her words and her interest in this topic. I think that most people, when they think of food banks, think of food bank lineups, where bags of food are distributed once a week. But the food bank is far more than that these days. In fact, it's always been that, through community organizations. Through the organization called the Food Runners program, which the member commented on, a very significant extension has taken place. In the Vancouver region alone 30,000 to 40,000 meals and snacks each month are made available from the Food Runners program. The Food Runners program takes material and food that's left over at restaurants, which is all healthy, good-quality food. . . . It's collected in sterilized containers, delivered by refrigerated trucks, preserved and then made available to people of all kinds. At the present time 142 agencies are receiving, on a regular basis, food thus collected, which formerly was thrown out and wasted.

There is a great deal being done because of neighbour helping neighbour. But one of the realities that we have to face is the fact that hunger does not take a holiday. We have to face the fact that we're getting the reports from right across the province that the number of people requiring food from food banks is increasing -- as I said, from 225 persons in 1982 to 9,000 in Vancouver alone and some 20,000 a week across the province -- and that's only 10 percent, or less, of the people who need that help.

People are unemployed; work, resources and skills are not available. But I think we must give thanks that in our province, neighbours are willing to help neighbours. It is not only done formally through the food banks. It's done when a neighbour takes a cake to their neighbour next door and when a neighbour goes next door when someone is sick and brings them a meal and a dinner to help them through. It's when neighbours are invited to come to another person's house to be befriended and welcomed.

I want to say thanks to all of those who have contributed so much to their neighbours, but I also want to say that there's much more to be done. This was to be a temporary program. Almost 17 years later, it looks like it's permanent for the time being. We must do the other things to make it temporary and therefore to eradicate hunger in our province.

DISCOVER THE KOOTENAYS

[1910]

The East Kootenay landscape is made up of very rugged mountains and intervening valleys with long lakes and reservoirs. The beauty of the East Kootenay is inviting to many people. Many people -- and investors looking for a place to invest -- come and visit the communities in the East Kootenay. We enjoy cool winters; we enjoy very warm summers. In fact, for solar energy possibilities, Cranbrook and that area sees more sunshine hours per year than any other place in

[ Page 13732 ]

Speaking of investments, I just want to talk a little bit about some investments throughout the province before I continue with the East Kootenay investments. I know how important investments are not just to the province but to the people that live in the communities and to the communities themselves, and specifically to the people that live in the East Kootenay. Investments have brought stability and continued employment for thousands of people across British Columbia, and those investments have created new economic prospects for many resources. Some of these areas in the province, which we've all read about and heard about in the last few weeks, include Evans Forest Products -- that's just a little way up the highway from my riding -- and MacDonald Dettwiler. We've heard about Skeena Cellulose, Louisiana-Pacific, Western Star, Ballard Power Systems and the recently announced Conair.

Interjection.

E. Walsh: Isn't it wonderful? It would be nice if it was all in the Kootenays, but unfortunately, it wasn't all in the Kootenays. But that investment in this province is wonderful.

At home in Cranbrook, Tembec has invested in our area there. In fact, it goes through Elko, Cranbrook, Canal Flats and Skookumchuck.

The decision to reinstate the 5 percent AAC to Tembec confirmed. . . . And their own quote confirmed their belief that British Columbia will become a good place to invest. Then they in fact had the licence transferred, and they received the 5 percent AAC. They purchased Crestbrook Forest Industries this year, and I am truly pleased with the transaction. I am very pleased that Tembec in fact planned and continues to invest in the province of British Columbia and most notably in the East Kootenay.

Charlie Locke, who is the proprietor of Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, has chosen to invest in this province also. This company is the fourth-largest ski operator in North America, and they chose to invest in the East Kootenay. In fact, their master plans call for an investment of $250 million at each resort in Fernie and Kimberley -- this, plus supporting investment by suppliers, local businesses and our communities. They said that skiing in British Columbia has an excellent future. This is as a result of favourable government legislation.

On another note, a proposed natural gas pipeline through the southern British Columbia area down through Yahk through to Oliver. In fact, Yahk is in my riding. This proposed natural gas pipeline has just been certified under the province's Environmental Assessment Act, and they have received a project approval certificate that will give B.C. Gas utility approval in principle, subject to conditions to build and operate a 312-kilometre pipeline. This pipeline, as I said, will go from Yahk to Oliver and has a capital investment of $344.6 million and more than 900 construction jobs, many of which will be hired locally.

[1915]

While we're on the subject of transport trucks. . . . Though I'm not in the Kootenay riding, I'd just like to mention -- I think it's a good thing to mention this, especially for residents of Kelowna -- the investment of Western Star in Kelowna. What this means for that community. . . .

Hon. Speaker, I see that my time has run out. It's unfortunate, and I will continue on my next bout.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to respond tonight to the member with regards to the Kootenays, because I was born in Nelson, and Nelson is one of the most beautiful cities in British Columbia. It's on Kootenay Lake. It's also the home of BOB. Now, BOB is the acronym that that community uses for the big orange bridge that goes across the lake to the other side. If you go across BOB, you go past the Blalocks mansion and you go out to Balfour. Between the Blalocks mansion and Balfour was where my great aunt Agnes and my uncle George Barefoot lived. They're my godparents. From Balfour to Kootenay Bay, there's a ferry. People may not realize it, but it is the longest free ferry ride in the world, and it's in the Kootenays of British Columbia.

The interesting thing about the Kootenays is its spectacular scenery and the spectacular opportunities for tourism and culture. The beauty of this place is absolutely unbelievable.

You have to experience the Kootenays in a special way. You can go to Nakusp, which at one time was not all under water -- half of it is now under water -- which is the home of a golf course that once had sand greens that I played but that now has grass greens. There are also hot springs in Nakusp, fabulous hot springs up in the mountains. There are also some along the highway between Nakusp and Revelstoke that only the locals know about, where you can go and sit in the hot springs on a nice day or evening and enjoy the camaraderie of your friends in the Kootenays. That's what the Kootenays is about. It's about people, and it's about friends. It's a good place to be, and it's a good place to visit.

The Kootenays also has what I think is one of the jewels of British Columbia: Creston. Creston sits in the Creston Valley with fruit trees and vegetables and a climate that's not dissimilar to many places in British Columbia that people flock to as tourists. In actual fact, it's a rather unspoiled valley with great affordability in housing and a great quality of life for the people that live there. As you move through the Kootenays, you go past Moyie Lake and you come into Cranbrook, which is the gateway to the Kootenays for its transportation and its feeders into the system. It's a neat city in itself. The fact is that I have many friends in Cranbrook that I've known over the years, and again, it's just a place where people make you feel welcome.

As you move out through the Elk Valley and toward Alberta, you'll go through the Crowsnest Pass past Fort Steele.

[ Page 13733 ]

[1920]

It is an interesting place, and it's a place that, once it has touched you, you really never leave. When you go back, you feel like you're home. You go back there because it's a place where people welcome you, where people are honest, where people have integrity. There's just a quality of life there in the Kootenays that you can't describe until you've had the opportunity to have been away from there and go back again and spend the time and see the people.

I'm honoured, in actual fact -- even though there may have been a bit of humour here -- to recognize the Kootenays this evening, along with the member. Frankly, the Kootenays is a place that many people who live in this province should discover. You know what? You don't have to travel very far in British Columbia to find the best of the best, and the best of the best is hunting, skiing, fishing and skidooing. Everything you can imagine, you can do in the Kootenays, and you can do it there because that's the way this part of the country is.

I see that my time is up, but I must say one thing in closing that people in British Columbia should recognize: a holiday in the Kootenays is as good as going anywhere else in Canada.

E. Walsh: Actually, I'm thrilled to be able to stand here and talk with the member opposite and listen to the member opposite talk of some of his own memories of the West Kootenays as they relate to his family, and the travel through to the East Kootenays. I enjoyed hearing some of his exploits, and I'd like to know a few more of those. I'll make sure that when I run into his family in the East Kootenay, I will in fact say "hi" to them for him.

The growth potential that we were just talking about in the East and the West Kootenays is one that I believe investors would be, in fact, very wise to take notice of. The present underutilization of the East Kootenay and those undeveloped markets today will someday be discovered by someone who has the initiative and the foresight to see it, to understand it and -- as I've said -- to discover what the East Kootenay is and what the East Kootenay has to offer.

The East Kootenay, along with, as I mentioned, its growing infrastructure, also has those railway links and many historical aspects of the railway links -- the Crowsnest railway. . . . We also have the national and provincial railway links. We have a major airport, which I would like to see improved in the near future to become even more of a major airport. We have many opportunities -- one of those, of course, being a market to the international market itself. We have lower costs of land, lower costs of living. We have everything. As the member opposite said, we have hunting, fishing, skiing, swimming. We have boating. You name it, we have it in the East Kootenay -- everything an investor would be looking for to place their family, their business, their company, whatever it is that they're looking for, into the East Kootenay.

The East Kootenay growth potential is one which is very important to our communities, to the people that move to the valley, to people that live in Cranbrook, that move in through to Kingsgate and Yahk. Wherever it is you happen to go, the potential is there. Though our economy is fairly diverse, we still have two mainstays of the economy, those being forestry and mining. The Elk Valley has a long history of mining and excellent, excellent geological potential. This too is waiting to be discovered.

Increasing high-tech jobs mean more jobs, and they mean more and greater stability for Kootenay residents and, again, East Kootenay residents. Access to the entire western Canadian market is within hours -- it's within reach of the province and the rest of the country.

I spoke about our challenges to investors, whoever they are, to discover the East Kootenay. And to make it easier for investors. . . .

It's too bad that I've run out of time, because I had some wonderful thoughts here that would make it much easier. So I would encourage them to call me, and I'll give them that information.

[1925]

THIRTY DAYS IN THREE HOURS: THE WHITE ROCK STORM

Yet the rain and devastation continued in the south Surrey area. More than 70 millimetres of rain and hail fell in approximately three hours. That is twice the normal recorded amount for the full month of June. Storm sewers were charged; they were plugged with hail. The rainwater backed up and was diverted into many homes and into many businesses. The water surged downward onto Marine Drive and began leaving devastation in its wake. It tore underneath roads such as Buena Vista, buckling the pavement up and tearing out the underbed. It tore out Everall Street, and DuPrez Street became a rapid-flowing river.

[ Page 13734 ]

The area responded quickly to what many are calling nothing short of a disaster. Climatologists and meteorologists are telling us that it's a flood, a phenomenon, that could be expected once every 300 years -- and clearly once is too often. The citizens of the affected areas have worked together, supported each other and struggled to get out from underneath the physical and financial burden which this deluge has caused. Their lives have been turned upside down and all in a very few, short minutes. But the volunteers have come out from everywhere as they participated in giving hours and hours in terms of volunteer time to assist their neighbours in digging out from the mud and the refuse that was left behind.

Of particular concern was the sewer system, which was also backed up and which caused contamination and high coliform counts across the waterfront. Some houses have been declared contaminated and will not be able to be reinhabited for a long period of time. Many houses have suffered damage, and many were not insured. Some homes and businesses are a complete loss. Over 30 vehicles have been written off by ICBC. Damage has been assessed at well over $2 million, and the primary source of that is the infrastructure damage to the city and to the individual homes which have been affected.

[1930]

In response to that, the citizens of the community have set up a relief fund, which has over $17,000 in it today. That fund has come strictly from volunteers who are putting forth their energies, their efforts and their dollars in an effort to assist the many families that have been devastated by this flood. Some moneys have already been allocated from that, and we hope that there will be many people who will contribute more to that fund to assist the many, many families who have no resources and who have been totally devastated.

A town hall meeting was held to inform the residents of the support available. Despite that, as I mentioned earlier, early indications are that there will be many, many businesses and homes which will not be eligible for any assistance at all. Their lives have been turned around, devastated, changed in an instant -- on a hillside in an area which they never once suspected would have that type of downfall, that type of rain, that type of devastation.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said: "It is out of adversity that we grow strength." We've started to see our community coming out of that and demonstrating the type of strength which all of us would be proud of in our neighbours and in our communities. I'm proud of the response that the residents of the city of White Rock and neighbouring areas have shown despite the devastation and in response to it.

E. Conroy: Let me begin by saying that in 1998, in my constituency of Rossland-Trail, there were some fairly severe floods which affected the towns of Trail and Castlegar -- equally as unexpected, though from different sources. I understand what the member for Surrey-White Rock has to deal with in terms of unexpected floods. Let me say to the member that I know that as an MLA, he's dealt with this issue in an appropriate manner. What can one do in a situation like this but go out and advocate for your constituents and do everything you can to try and help them get through this time of adversity? All of us in this Legislature, when our constituencies are in difficulty, attempt to do the same thing, so I just want to say to the member opposite that I recognize the efforts that he's made in order to try and help his constituency during times of peril and very difficult circumstances.

Let me also congratulate and acknowledge the work of local governments, who are the first ones to respond to disasters and who carry much of the responsibility for flood protection. The provincial government plays a supportive role in assisting local governments during emergencies, when and if they're needed. But it is really the local governments that get out there and do the real leg work in order to try and deal with these emergencies that they have.

[1935]

After the disaster happens, when PEP comes in, it maintains involvement in the affected communities through recovery programs. I want everyone to know that there is life after flood. The PEP program is out there in order to help communities deal with life after flood. Disaster financial assistance, or DFA, is a key component of recovery programs, and it is administered by the provincial emergency program. The DFA program helps victims of disaster cope financially with the cost of uninsurable damage to their property. It's available to homeowners, renters, small business, farm operators, charitable and volunteer organizations and local governments. Individuals can claim up to $100,000 damage for items essential to home, livelihood or community service. These may include structural losses such as flooring, foundation, attached garages, roofing, doors and windows; and contents such as furniture, the laundry room, including appliances and clothing. The costs of cleanup and debris removal, as well as

[ Page 13735 ]

The provincial government has made a concerted effort to inform victims of their options and make them aware of the disaster financial assistance fund. After the flood, notices were placed in Surrey and White Rock, local newspapers and aired on the radio to inform flood victims about disaster financial assistance. PEP workers also participated in a public meeting after the flood. PEP workers have already begun the task of assuming claims for disaster financial assistance in the wake of the White Rock storm.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

E. Conroy: I take it that between government and the local MLA, it has been handled in a manner that has been in the best interests of the citizens of White Rock.

G. Hogg: I certainly appreciate the member for Rossland-Trail's comments and the empathy which he has expressed with the people of Surrey-White Rock. Certainly one doesn't intellectually grasp or understand such a phenomenon; you have to really experience it to be able to relate to and understand what people are going through.

The member has appropriately pointed out the cooperation of the various levels of government. In fact, the city of White Rock responded immediately and quickly, with the aid and support of the city of Surrey. The GVRD was quick to respond and add their staff and their equipment to the program. The PEP people from the province were there, quickly assessing and looking at damages. ICBC was on site -- in fact, in some instances had paid out cheques to individuals within two days, which I thought was a wonderful response to it and the Insurance Bureau of Canada was there and present to assist and support. Truly, there will be life after flood.

But as I commented, it's not an intellectual grasp that allows one to really experience what has gone on. There is in this case real human drama that is needed to understand and to reflect the impact that has taken place. I met with a family who have two teenaged children and who had lost their total business -- an antique business which was flooded. Everything was lost in their business. They did not have insurance. They are not, at this point, covered by PEP. They have nothing, to the extent that within five days we had to assist them in going to B.C. Benefits and getting assistance and support.

[1940]

The city is now reviewing the impact of its response to the flood -- looking at it and wondering whether or not there was more that could have been done previously, more that could have been done at the time of the flood. Should the storm sewer systems be built for a ten- or a 20- or a 25-year flood in order to better manage these issues and respond to the concerns that people have? Clearly there are many members within the community who do not feel that enough was done -- as always happens in these instances as one starts to look at the individual circumstances and situations that evolve in it.

But, hon. Speaker, a quiet seaside community was quickly turned upside down, and it will take months to revive and come back to life. In some cases, it'll take years. Some lives have been devastated, and we only hope that with assistance and support, they can get back on their feet and feel positive and comfortable again.

Deputy Speaker: I thank all members for their statements, responses and replies, and congratulate all members for staying within the spirit and intent of standing order 25.

Hon. D. Lovick: I share your sentiments, and I'm sure everybody in the chamber does.

It's my pleasure now to call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we shall be continuing the estimates of the Minister of Education. In the other chamber, we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

R. Thorpe: I just want to ask a few questions on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton. Perhaps the minister may have addressed some of these issues in general, but I would appreciate if he could zero in on answering some questions for the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton. The first has to do with school district 23, which Peachland is located in, and it has to do with busing. I'm just wondering: has the minister received any special requests with respect to busing in the Peachland area?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, not specifically relating to Peachland. We've surely discussed busing issues with school district 23 in general.

[1945]

Hon. P. Ramsey: District 23 has not discussed particular school routes with me or with the ministry. They have dis-

[ Page 13736 ]

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the minister allowing me to pursue this line of questioning, because I know that he knows that this is very important to the parents in Peachland and to the children. I guess I am particularly concerned, though. . . . I would ask the minister to undertake through his staff to perhaps look at the Peachland situation, especially with respect to Princeton Avenue, with heavy logging traffic -- a road that was downloaded from the province to the municipality to the regional government, a road that was not turned over in acceptable condition, a road that does not have sidewalks and has very little side of the road. I would ask the minister to undertake to have staff look at that in cooperation with school district 23.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Getting the children safely to school is, I think, a concern for everybody and is a responsibility of school boards. This particular road and these particular issues have not been raised with the ministry. I will ask staff to raise them with district 23 staff, though I must say I would assume that district 23 is aware of the specific issues. But we'll make sure that we raise these with them.

R. Thorpe: An issue that is becoming increasingly topical in Penticton has to do with school crossings, and the school district now is saying that due to funding from the province, they are being forced to remove school crossing funding. Does the ministry have any policy with respect to school crossing funding and any funding that they allocate for school crossing?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does not provide funding specifically targeted for school crossing guards to districts in British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise me if this type of activity, just through the exposure that he and his staff have to a number of school districts. . . ? Is this a phenomenon that school districts are having to address? And are a lot of school districts having to remove school crossing guard programs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are lots of school districts in the province that use crossing guards -- I'd say probably all of them -- in some form or another. I'd say that the great majority of them tend to do some sort of combination of volunteers, very often supplemented by students actually serving as crossing guards. . . . I remember being one when I was a youth myself.

[1950]

R. Thorpe: With respect to the provincial curriculum, does the province provide -- and if so, what direction is provided to school districts with respect to providing -- information for teaching students the importance of November 11, Remembrance Day?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Obviously, in studies of history or socials, the history of World War I and the importance of Remembrance Day would be discussed. There is no specific part of the curriculum that mandates what schools would do around Remembrance Day, though I've rarely been in a school that doesn't have some sort of school activity planned around November 11. Very often it's an opportunity for members of the Legion to get involved with the schools around these issues.

I should just say to the member that I was recently privileged to be in Prince George welcoming a convention of the Legion to our community, and they were actually presenting an award to a local art teacher in Prince George Secondary, whose students had produced a marvellous mural of contributions made by the Canadian Forces to peace for all the decades of the twentieth century. So that sort of connection between veterans, veterans organizations and the school system seems to me to be alive and well in British Columbia and is surely reflected in school activities around November 11.

R. Thorpe: Well, it's great that the Legion recognized that teacher in Prince George. I think that's very, very important. The reason I asked the question is because the Legions that I have the privilege to attend -- and my father's a veteran -- seem, in my area, to be very concerned that this is not part of the school curriculum for young people today and that we're losing something. It was 50-some-odd years ago that the war ended. I would request that we seriously look at making sure that the province is championing something, because this is about remembering. This is about building and having people. . . . As time goes by, it becomes harder and harder for people to link back, but I think it's so important.

I would ask the minister to please have staff look at this so that our children -- in my particular case, my grandchildren -- have the opportunity in the formal classroom to appreciate what happened, to understand what happened and to value. . . . I personally believe that it's one of the key parts of our being and our democracy. I'm just wondering what kind of an undertaking the minister will give me tonight that staff will look at this. I mean, I'm not asking for a major program. I'm asking that we can at least remember and respect and perhaps encourage some kind of a program at the school level.

[1955]

The other thing that I hope the member would undertake to do on a local level is contact his local school board around the issue and, if there isn't a strong relationship between the Legion and the school board in the community, perhaps undertake a bit of match-making. In most communities I've been in, that is a strong relationship. As I say, I've rarely been in a school that hasn't had some sort of schoolwide activity scheduled around November 11.

[ Page 13737 ]

My last question -- and I know it's one of the minister's favourite questions; it certainly seems to be in our particular area -- is on special education funding. The board of school trustees of school district 67 wrote to the minister on February 24, 1999: "To assume that core special education funding was only spent on administration is not correct." They go on to say in their letter: "We just hope that this consideration will acknowledge that since September 30, 1997, the date established by the AIC for staff ratioings, we face a $280,000 reduction in special education funding." I'm just wondering if the minister can comment, because I know he's made comments on the levels of special ed funding in other districts. Where does he see that his government is versus their funding formula with respect to school district 67?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Funding for special education -- at least, targeted funding for special education -- in district 67 has been relatively flat this year over last, a decline of $132,000 from $5,368,000 to $5,236,000. It seems to be largely a result of a projected decline in enrolment of around 130 students, which the school district is projecting for next fall.

The issue that the member refers to is, of course, one of those that arise out of amalgamation. We have been gradually moving towards treating amalgamated boards as one district for purposes of core funding in special education, as in other areas. In that movement we've paused, actually, this year. The original proposal that we put out a year ago was to eliminate that duplication of core funding entirely; instead, we decided to phase it out over two years. That provided some relief on the issue of Okanagan-Skaha. It gave them about $70,000 more in core funding for special education than they would otherwise have anticipated. Okanagan-Skaha actually targets for special education almost precisely the targeted money that's given by the provincial government -- very close.

[2000]

I guess the real question that I have. . . . Well, I have two questions here, and then we can move on. First of all, I don't seem to have received a copy. . . . I'm just wondering if staff can check at a later time. The chair wrote to the minister on February 24, 1997, in regard to this issue, and I'm wondering if in fact there has been a reply. If there has, I'd appreciate getting a reply.

Secondly, what kind of process is in place when the ministry says this and the school district says this? What kind of a process do we have to bring people together to attempt to work out these differences? It's the students that we should all be focusing on.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll surely ask the correspondence branch to check on the reply to that letter and ask them to copy the member on our correspondence with district 67.

As far as how you work things out, one of the ongoing efforts of the ministry is to assist school districts that are having financial difficulties and not simply ignore them. We discussed this at some length earlier. We've been putting in place things like efficiency advisory teams to go in and look at the finances of a district that's having severe difficulties and to recommend to the district and to the ministry -- both ways -- any accommodations that should be made. When funding formulas are changed -- and they change just about every year as we try to make sure that we're distributing equitably and fairly the $3.6 billion that we provide to school districts -- we seek to work with districts to phase in those changes, where that's appropriate, and to understand fully what the impacts are. Obviously there's contact between ministry staff and boards in a wide range of venues, and we seek to understand what's going on and to assist wherever possible.

R. Thorpe: One of the issues that has come up since I have had the opportunity to serve as MLA for Okanagan-Penticton and have come to know the different trustees and the management team in the school district. . . . Before, it was two school districts that amalgamated -- an amalgamation, I might say, that everyone handled very well in our area. One of the things that comes up continually, though -- and I would appreciate some comment from the minister -- is: what incentives or what rewards are there for people, for staff and for management teams, that really do a good job, as opposed to those who don't seem to do a very good job and end up being penalized in the following year's funding?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises an issue that we did canvass earlier. I'll try to go through some of the things we've got fairly quickly. This is an issue that I've heard from a number of boards and from senior administrators in the public school system. We've embarked on a number of things to do exactly what the member suggests -- to try to reward efficiencies, rather than say: "Oh, thank you very much for saving that money. We'll take the savings." So in several areas we've instituted programs this year where if a board undertakes some things -- restructuring of support services that saves money -- they get to benefit from that.

[2005]

We've also responded to boards where there are clearly functions where we can save money for all boards by acting centrally. I'll give you just one example. That's in the purchase of software. Frankly, it makes little sense to have 1,700 schools or 59 different school districts out there trying to get the best price on Excel from a local supplier. So what we have done is struck a licensing arrangement with the manufacturer and offered this to school boards. The cost to them would be, in

[ Page 13738 ]

L. Reid: I'm pleased to join the debate this evening on Ministry of Education estimates, and I welcome the staff to the chamber as well. In terms of my school district and my leanings to pursuing education, certainly I'm intensely proud of the district of Richmond. Frankly, it was my need to be involved in the educational process that attracted me to politics in 1991. The minister opposite and I shared some lengthy debates in our past on this very topic.

In terms of a question that was brought to me on behalf of parents in my riding. . . . It's a facilities construction question. It relates to Matthew McNair Secondary School. The students at that school have, frankly, lived in a construction zone for their entire school year. This construction is not yet complete. Can the minister give some guidance as to why this project seems to be so problematic in terms of completion?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an issue I hadn't been aware of until you raised it, so I thank you for raising it with staff. I have listened to a quick briefing here. I'm not sure there's a lot that you or I could do to accelerate this. The project is now scheduled to be completed in January 2000, which is about six months later than had originally been hoped. The crux of the problem seems to be relations between the contractor and the school board. I understand from staff that that relationship has gotten so problematical that legal action has even been threatened.

It's regrettable when this happens in a construction project. I don't think there's any really quick answer, other than to hope that the board can continue to find ways to make sure that the contractor is delivering what was bid on and promised in a timely fashion. I will surely ask staff to check in with the school board to see if there's any way we can assist in making that relationship work as smoothly as possible and get this project done as quickly as possible.

[2010]

My next comment will simply be that the renovation on Hugh McRoberts Secondary went beautifully -- very, very well indeed. I thank the ministry in terms of their commitment to that project.

One other question, and, again, it's a parental concern that has come forward in terms of mould and mildew in portables -- an air quality question. They are interested in some kind of baseline measure. What kind of regular evaluation of that does the ministry engage in? Certainly, when individuals bring the issue forward, there's some kind of crisis management around it. But the question, I think, needs some greater continuity. Does the ministry, in its school districts, evaluate on a regular basis those areas: mould, mildew and air quality? Indeed, is there some kind of annual report that comes out to that effect?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope that in a couple of years, we'll be putting air quality difficulties in portables in Richmond behind us by getting rid of most of the portables. Given the projects that we've announced and the schedule that the school district and the ministry have signed off on, we should be taking the number of portables from 249 last year, I think it was, to 62 in three years. As part of this portable reduction plan, if you have an older portable that may be subject to air quality, you still need to keep a temporary space at a school. We'll be encouraging school districts to get rid of the old one and put in a relatively new one. So you have newer facilities, even if they are in portables, and reduce the incidence of air quality difficulties.

But you asked a very specific question: does the ministry monitor air quality or set standards for it? The answer is no. The agency that sets air quality standards is the Workers Compensation Board, and the responsibility for ensuring that facilities meet those standards rests with the school board. Where a school board identifies problems, we work with them to make sure we can remediate as quickly as possible, either with a new facility or with improved ventilation, replacing or getting rid of old carpet or any number of mechanisms that are used to remediate those problems.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the plan to reduce portables.

The air quality comment, I think, would extend to construction sites as well. I have some fears over the Matthew McNair Secondary renovations, in that these young people have been subjected to air quality that's questionable for probably 18 months and perhaps another six months. If the minister could fold that into his thinking in terms of a plan -- so when the minister has his staff evaluate the project at McNair, the air quality question is evaluated as well -- I would appreciate that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll surely have staff raise that with Richmond, as we see what we can do to assist the completion of McNair.

G. Hogg: Recognizing that in a discussion I had with the minister earlier I've said to him that I was hopeful that we could finish this evening, I will try and move in staccato fashion, and hopefully the minister can respond in same so that we can get through some of the issues that are before us.

The issue of bullying and violence has been prevalent in the media coverage around North America, and I note that the minister -- on May 7 last year, during the estimates -- said that he would be surveying school districts and schools in the summer to see how they were dealing with inappropriate behaviours. I'm wondering whether or not that survey took place, what the results of that may be and what actions they're taking with respect to managing violence and bullying.

[2015]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff here don't have the information on the survey. I'll make sure you get that.

[ Page 13739 ]

G. Hogg: Do we have any baseline data to look at with respect to the amount of violence that has taken place or whether that is reported violence, reported to the police out of schools, which would be one level of violence that has resulted in people being kicked out of school, expelled from school? Is there any type of baseline data that may have been developed over the past number of years? Can we get that baseline data on the record so that we can start doing some comparisons with respect to whether or not there is an increase or decrease in that type of behaviour?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We will provide the member with what data we have. There are some clear measures, and suspension is clearly one -- though I would say that schools are increasingly looking at alternatives to suspension. We have to be cautious here, because one of the things we're actually encouraging schools to do is say: "Hold on now. A suspension may remove the problem temporarily, but maybe we haven't solved it if the way that people are dealing with conflict remains the same when the student returns from suspension." So we'll get you the data that we have on that and some other issues. I'll stop there.

G. Hogg: I just reference that during my days working through the Salvation Army's House of Concord -- a residential centre -- and through years in Corrections, I became fairly familiar with the positive peer culture structures that were developed out of Chicago, where at one point they had to have police officers at the end of each hallway. They introduced the positive peer culture structures and by doing that were able to get the police out of the places, using the positive peer culture structures to turn around and change the environment within the schools. Some of that work is somewhat dated, but it still, I think, has some value. Certainly their interpretations are updated interpretations of Brendtro and Vorrath's work -- I think it was. It may be something that the ministry would be willing to look at.

If I may move from that -- appropriately, talking about staccato -- to a couple of music issues. Puns may. . . . We talked about Dr. Achilles' heel, did we not? So it doesn't get any worse. As I've looked at a number of school districts as they've looked at ways to balance their budgets, a number of them have cut elementary school programs. I'm wondering if the minister has an opinion with respect to that and the impact that it may have.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect elementary school children to be exposed to and to receive instruction in music. It's part of the core curriculum in elementary education across British Columbia. It's a local decision on whether that program is delivered -- at least in part -- through elementary band, which is very often an area of some contention. Some school districts have it; some don't. It is a matter for local decision.

I've had two children go through the public school system in Prince George. One had the benefit of an elementary school band program as well as other music programs; one did not. I can't draw any meaningful conclusion from that database, and I'm not sure that the ministry really has much beyond that.

This is a local decision. We do expect instruction in music as part of the elementary curriculum, and we believe that districts are delivering it whether or not they choose to have an elementary band program.

G. Hogg: I understand that the IRP for K-to-7 is now available with respect to music programs, and I also understand that there may be some elementary schools that are not providing those music classes even though, as you say, it is in the core curriculum. I'm wondering whether or not it is part of the ministry's mandate to check that to ensure that those standards are being met and whether there is any data that has been gathered, district by district, to look at the type of instruction that's given, the type of instructors that are providing it and the variety of instruction consistent with the IRP for K-to-7 in music.

[2020]

G. Hogg: The IRP for 8-to-12 -- the senior high school IRP -- I understand, is now 25 to 30 years old. Has there been any intent to look at it in terms of updating that IRP and reviewing what's contained within that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps the member can supply me and staff with the source of that information. We're unaware of any IRP that's 30 years old -- or 25 years old. It may well be that some of the particular resources that are referenced in an IRP might be ancient. One suspects that the notes of the scale and the sharps and flats haven't changed a great deal over that period. As far as IRPs, that has been revisited, and I am unaware of any IRP that has that sort of age on it.

G. Hogg: The source of that is the Coalition for Music Education in British Columbia, and they're the ones that have advised me of that. Perhaps we could check with them for the clarification and look into that.

I'm sure the minister is well aware of the research that has gone on, and I'm sure he has been inundated with e-mail and research with respect to the impact of music and the impact that it has in terms of a child's interest development and abilities at an early age. I'd just be interested in hearing, inasmuch as it's part of the core subject matter, whether or not there's an overall philosophy statement or a position, which the minister and ministry take with respect to music and music programs.

[ Page 13740 ]

I think it is valuable and important to have that balance in an education system. I think it's vital that we have opportunities and indeed requirements that children get exposed to the arts. As the figures that I gave to the member earlier today show, there does not appear to be any slackening in enrolment across the province in some of those areas -- in drama, music, dance. Indeed, there seems to be fairly stable and increasing enrolment in many of those areas.

[2025]

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, we don't gather that information. It would be a local board decision. I do think that over the years, drama programs in the province have at least shifted from doing American and British productions to a higher percentage of Canadian productions.

G. Hogg: I guess we don't have a Canadian content ruling with respect to this at this stage, and hopefully, we'll not be moving toward that.

I'd like to now move on and ask the minister some further questions with respect to the cost of administration and expenses. We know that the ministry has been asking districts to look at that and to concentrate on trying to reduce their administrative costs. Many have looked at doing that and have had some success in that. I'm wondering: what has the Ministry of Education itself. . . ? What has occurred with respect to administrative costs within the ministry itself in terms of any changes that may have occurred this year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There have been reductions both in the overall budget of ministry services and in FTEs. We discussed this somewhat earlier, and I pledged to get that information to a member. I'll make sure that you get a copy as well.

G. Hogg: A number of B.C. students have allegedly been involved in sharing textbooks, and we've talked a little bit about that previously. Last year the minister made reference to the western protocol and the evolution and development of the western protocol in looking at purchases. Can the minister advise us as to what is in fact happening with the western protocol and what impact that may have on services to classrooms?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two areas I'd reference here. The first is math. I think that's where we discussed it last year, because we're indeed sort of holding up on acquiring further math texts until we've made the decision on implementation of the western protocol on math resources. Those decisions have been made. It's now being implemented. I think the math teachers in the province are breathing a sigh of relief. The English teachers have just concluded a meeting recently here in Victoria, I think, to look at the materials again so that we can get some commonalities across the western provinces. My understanding is that they expect to begin that implementation in the coming school year.

G. Hogg: With respect to that, I understand that it can take up to 12 years for a textbook to be written and approved and into the classroom. Is that in fact true? How long does it take from the approval of textbooks to their actually being written? If it is 12 years -- and I've been told that by former staff members of the ministry -- it seems like in this day and age, that's a heck of a long time to have to wait for textbooks. I wonder whether or not there is any truth to that or how long it normally would take.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I certainly hope that 12-year waits are a thing of the past. I mean, most textbooks that I've seen would go through three editions in that time period, and I think publishers are responding far more quickly. The other thing we've sought to do is streamline the process at our end. It used to be that publishers submitted materials for review, I think, once a year or sometimes maybe once every couple of years. Now we have a policy of continuous submission. If a publisher wishes to submit something for ministry consideration and inclusion as a recommended resource, they can do it at any time.

G. Hogg: Do we have a sense of how many schools in the province may be dramatically overcrowded -- in fact, so overcrowded that they find it difficult to hold a full assembly within the school due to fire regulations? My question is simply: do we have a lot of schools that are dramatically overcrowded to the extent that they're not able to hold a full assembly -- or what the impact may be on those facilities?

[2030]

G. Hogg: The issue comes through BCCPAC, and it comes as a result of a number of PACs working together and looking at their concerns. I gather it's where we've probably seen a number of portables on site, and that type of growth and the concerns that exist with that.

Shall I move on, then, to the issue of the technology IRP? I want the minister's response to whether or not there's an adequate level of hardware and software available in schools today to look at the technology IRP. If there's not, we made reference earlier to some funds that were available for the purchase of that -- and whether or not it is the minister's

[ Page 13741 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member probably knows that when my predecessor announced the technology plan, we also set some ratios for hardware in schools. We said that we should get a target of one computer for three students in secondary schools and one computer for six students in elementary schools. As of last June 30, the ratios were one computer for 4.8 students in secondary and one computer for 6.13 students in elementary. So we've made good progress toward those goals, and we have another year to go on that program. So my sense is that the majority of schools who wish to instruct in information technology do have the equipment to do it.

Actually, I met with IT educators at a conference they recently held. The focus of their work really wasn't so much on the hardware-software issues. They seemed to be getting pretty good attention to that from their schools and school districts. Their issues were much more around how you did student evaluation, how you set projects and measured them, how you involved a wider range of teachers in it and, as we discussed earlier, how you did appropriate in-service so that you had a highly qualified staff to use the technology that was available.

G. Hogg: All-day kindergarten should at this point. . . . To qualify for all-day kindergarten in the inner schools, I understand that it has to be either ESL, special needs or first nations. Has there been any consideration given to looking at the issues of poverty with respect to that, or is that something that expands it too far at this point in time? This comes from my personal experience in terms of setting up some programs in east Vancouver, looking at the programs that we're trying to run all summer and dealing with that. It seems to me that the issue of poverty should be looked at or be considered with respect to one of the criteria that would be applied to all-day kindergarten.

[2035]

G. Hogg: I hear the minister saying it's a priority for him to look at in the future.

With respect to ESL and the new regulations that have come in for ESL and the five-year cap that's been put on that, with the possibility of extending beyond that, are there any criteria that have been placed for extending it beyond the five-year time frame? Have there been dollars allocated according to what might be applied there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've tagged, in the current year's budget, a minimum of half a million dollars to assist students who need ESL for a period longer than five years. Obviously we would expect school districts that are providing that sort of additional service to have a program in place to make sure that students are actually receiving service. We're now working with the lower mainland consortium -- where, as the member knows, the great majority of ESL students are enrolled -- to develop specific criteria for accessing that funding.

G. Hogg: One of my concerns has been the issue of adults with disabilities. They don't receive funding until age 19. They often complete school, and they're not eligible for services for adults with disabilities until age 19. Many students graduate at age 18. At that point a number of parents request additional services -- additional education -- for their son or daughter. The school district grants the request, and they do not receive money from the ministry with respect to that age group.

I'm wondering whether the minister has had any discussions with the Ministry for Children and Families or any other ministries in terms of being able to better facilitate a number of adults with disabilities who seem to fall through a gap in terms of services. I think there is a need to look at how we might be able to respond to those types of needs. I just wonder whether or not the minister has had an opportunity to look at that and whether or not it is something he'd be prepared to look at to see if there are some services we could provide to assist those people.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the ministry has discussions on this issue not only with the Ministry for Children and Families but also with the office for disability issues, which resides in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and with other programs in that ministry that seek to assist adults with handicaps in accessing post-secondary education. So it is a multi-agency problem, and we try to address it with our partners in working with those folks in trying to provide them the assistance they need.

G. Hogg: A number of these would not be going on to post-secondary education of any sort and need a type of assistance and support. I hear the minister saying that there is some work being done on that, and I'll look forward to some type of response in terms of being able to address those who so often now fall through the cracks.

Can the minister clarify the distinction between funding for French-language education for French-speaking British Columbians and French-language education for French immersion programs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Children who qualify for French-language education under section 23 of the Canadian constitution have the right to receive education in French that's controlled by the francophone community in the province. They fall within the mandate of the Francophone Education Authority, which this coming year will have authority to offer francophone education throughout British Columbia.

[2040]

[ Page 13742 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do provide the school districts with some additional money for French immersion programs: $113 per FTE in elementary French immersion, $451 per FTE in late-intermediate French immersion and $564 per FTE for graduate French immersion. So we do provide some additional funds to school districts. These are not targeted funds. School districts report on how they expend them as part of their normal audited and reporting processes.

G. Hogg: We talked earlier in these debates about StatsCan figures that were talking about some 18 percent of graduates in British Columbia moving on to post-secondary education. There are obviously a high number of students, no matter what stats one may choose to believe, who do not go on to post-secondary education. I'm wondering if the minister could advise this House of some of the programs that he has in place and the initiatives he has and the philosophy he has around those high school students who are not bound for universities or for colleges.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I must say that the statistic that the member quoted from StatsCan really doesn't do justice to what's going on in post-secondary education in this province. I believe that is an analysis by StatsCan of one age cohort -- 18 to 24 -- that includes only full-time students. That is one measure, and it is a common measure. If you do a basis of analysis, it's the 18-to-29 cohort, since the average age of a person in post-secondary education is constantly increasing. If we include both full-time and part-time -- frankly, the sort of training, retraining and part-time education is at least as important as full-time to making sure that people stay current in their field -- then B.C. ranks second in StatsCan measures. So just looking at that, I really do think that a wider range of measures is needed to look at how well we're doing in post-secondary participation.

Having said that, I want to talk as quickly as I can about two separate areas. One is about efforts to ensure that secondary students have opportunities to pursue a career program that isn't a college diploma or a university degree program. Those include things like career programs -- some of which are linked to college credit -- high school apprenticeship programs, career technical centres -- which are expanding this fall and will expand again in the fall of the year 2000 -- and, of course, the career and personal planning course for all students to assist them with sitting down, setting some goals and realistically looking at what their abilities, skills and interests are and what careers they wish to apply them to, either in direct labour market entry or through further training in vocational, career or university institutions.

[2045]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The number is gradually rising. For the coming year we expect to have over 400 students in secondary school beginning an apprenticeship program. A couple of years ago it was at 300, so we're making some progress. The real limiting factor here seems to be finding placements for the students. Obviously you can't have an apprenticeship program that consists only of schooling. You need the on-the-job work in summers as well.

G. Hogg: Could the minister describe the types of linkages that exist between the secondary and post-secondary programs and whether school districts are actively involved in that type of programming?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ties are getting tighter, more integrated and closer by the year. It includes areas like advanced placement for high school courses, where a student will get college or university credit for a course taken in high school. It includes laddered programs, where a student can actually begin a career program at a secondary level and then complete it at a college. It includes the career technical centres that actually integrate secondary and post-secondary training for students in one program -- taught by both K-to-12 instructors and college faculty. I think this is going to do nothing but increase in the years to come.

G. Hogg: Is the minister aware of how many school districts are being funded for cooperative education programs? And has the funding formula for such education changed over the past number of years in the sense of the dollars that are associated with that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the member means career programs, I'd be pleased to provide that. Co-op education is a term that's usually used in post-secondary education and career programs. We'll get you the information.

G. Hogg: Yes, career programs would answer that question. I haven't received that. If it is one of those handy-dandy handouts which could be provided to me. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Very quickly, the enrolment in career programs. . . . We'll get you the handy-dandy sheet.

G. Hogg: I'm assuming that means it's either bad news or not legible.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Or too complex -- too complex for me to understand? I appreciate the assessment you've made of me and the determination you've made not to provide me with that.

With respect to independent schools, I understand, based on the estimates discussion, that in 1995-96 it was running at about 8 percent. I'm wondering where that is now. We were advised that April through June of 1997 there was a 5 percent growth. I'm wondering what the levels are at now and what type of growth we're seeing in that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Enrolment in the independent school system grew by 1.1 percent in 1998-99, to a total of 58,606 students. So that's a growth rate slightly in excess of the public school enrolment but surely not growing very rapidly.

[ Page 13743 ]

[2050]

G. Hogg: What happens to low-performing or incompetent teachers? How many teacher certificates has the College of Teachers cancelled for reasons of incompetence over, say, the last year and/or the last five years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: You've identified the body that has responsibility for lifting licences of teachers who don't make the grade. I don't have that data here. We'll obtain it for you.

G. Hogg: With respect to accreditation rating, what happens if a school repeatedly receives a low accreditation rating? Are there any actions taken if that goes on over and over again?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It hasn't happened. I mean, if a school receives that sort of accreditation rating, we go in and provide the assistance they need to make sure they're doing better. That seems to have worked well. They are required to produce an improvement plan if there are deficiencies identified in the accreditation process and to follow through on that plan.

G. Hogg: Legislation which was recently introduced provides the ministry and educators with the opportunity to look at better utilization of schools and school calendars and schedules. I think that that will give us the ability to better use all of the facilities that we have. Are there any incentives or plans in place that the ministry may have in its effort to look at the more effective and more efficient utilization of the resources and facilities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly the advantage to the school districts is being able to provide education in a high-quality facility. You know, if you can get more use out of that facility, it's a net benefit to the taxpayers, as well as to the students. We've been discussing with school districts how we accurately measure the additional wear and tear of having year-round schooling rather than ten-months-of-the-year schooling, to make sure we're recognizing that in our funding allocated to districts. Beyond that, I think the real beneficiaries could be the families of students enrolled in a different model of schooling, as they look at sort of breaking the model here of a school calendar that comes from the agricultural age of Europe and North America.

G. Hogg: The factory model and all the other things associated with that. . . .

I was interested to hear, with Earl Marriott Secondary School, that there was a press release that came out regarding the additional seats associated with Earl Marriott. But some time prior to that, a parent found the change in the number of seats for both Earl Marriott and Princess Margaret on the Ministry of Education's web site. It was there prior to it being announced by the ministry, and the school district was amazed and surprised that it was there. There was the press release and memo that came out subsequent to that. So if one were sinister, one might project that decisions are being made in some nefarious fashion or for some nefarious reason. Of course, I'm not sinister, and I'm sure not many people in this House are sinister. I wonder whether or not the minister is aware of this, and if not, if he would be prepared to look into that and advise how that decision was made and why it seems to have been made outside of the ambit of normal decision-making processes.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Never let it be said that the Ministry of Education seeks to conceal relevant information from school districts. We even post it on the web site. I don't know the answer as to why that was posted on the web site before formal correspondence was exchanged with the school. If you wish to pursue it, we will be glad to follow up.

[2055]

If I could ask the minister. . . . I have a number of other questions that involve some assessment issues and some social promotion issues. I would be prepared to place those in writing to the minister, given the time, if I had his assurance that there would be prompt response to those. Because I've talked so much through these estimates about the issue of goal-setting and measurable outcomes, I should probably define what "prompt" would mean in my mind. Prompt would mean that if I'm able to get that to the minister by. . . . When I get it to the minister, I would ask that they. . . . Is 30 days reasonable for a response to any questions that I might put to him?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thirty days is a goal that we accept and will meet. I'm not sure what goal we're setting for the member, as far as getting the questions in writing to the ministry. I think that would be a good way to wind up any further issues that the member has. I think we have a fairly lengthy list of issues on which we've undertaken to provide information to the member and to members of the opposition who have raised issues with me during the debate. I thank the member for facilitating the conclusion of estimates.

G. Hogg: I also want to extend my gratitude to the minister and his staff for assisting in moving through it in the staccato fashion in which we've dealt with the last three-

[ Page 13744 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank everybody for their participation in this. Education is important to all members of the House, and this year's estimates of the ministry, like previous years, have canvassed a wide range of subjects. I think there have been, I hope, equal measures of. . . . Well, a lot of light and perhaps not too much heat.

Vote 22 approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

B. Penner: When we broke yesterday, my colleague the member for Matsqui was asking some questions about trade missions. I see he has just arrived. Before I turn the floor over to him, however, I'd like to ask the minister the following question: what trade missions did the province of British Columbia undertake last year, and how many are planned this year? As well, maybe to save a follow-up question, what was the cost of those missions last year, and what is the anticipated cost for this year? What is the budgeted amount?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The total budget for missions was $121,558 last year. The missions that went. . . . I did Portland, Oregon, the west coast of the U.S. -- that was the convention centre -- and the U.K. and Asia -- which was Singapore, Japan and southern China. Then this past spring it was Mexico and Peru. The total cost of that was $42,528. Advanced Education was Seattle, Washington and San Francisco -- high-tech. That was $2,100. Agriculture was $2,600; Attorney General was $6,900; Energy and Mines was $5,900; Finance and Corporate Relations was $12,700; Fisheries was $1,600; Human Resources was $4,400; Small Business was $8,500; and Transportation and Highways was $2,200.

B. Penner: Of the $121,000 that was budgeted last year, what was the actual amount spent?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's the actual amount that was spent.

B. Penner: How did the actual amount compare to what had been budgeted for last year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We budgeted $82,000.

B. Penner: The minister listed a number of dollar figures attributable to various ministries. Can I presume that those costs were incurred by the ministers of those ministries -- or by officials travelling on behalf of those various ministries?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be just ministers.

B. Penner: Can the minister tell us why their budget for trade missions last year was about 50 percent over the anticipated amount?

[1450]

B. Penner: How much has been budgeted this year for trade missions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $82,000.

B. Penner: What assurance can the minister give us that the budget won't be exceeded by 50 percent or more this year? It appears that last year's budget didn't mean that much, if the government was willing to exceed it by as much as 50 percent. What does the budgeted amount really mean if in fact the ministry doesn't live within that particular budget?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We plan on the events that are coming over the coming year, but we also are prepared to take

[ Page 13745 ]

M. de Jong: How much of the $82,000 for this year's budget has already been spent?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think only about $4,000 has been spent so far.

M. de Jong: And that related to which trade mission?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think to Minister Lali's trip to India.

M. de Jong: And that was sufficient to cover the cost of the Minister of Transportation and Highways and at least one B.C. Trade and Investment Office staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is just the minister's expenditure.

M. de Jong: Well, that's helpful. Mr. Rattan from the B.C. Trade and Investment Office also attended, and I'm given to understand that his expenses were also covered out of the minister's budget.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were three people that went on that mission. One was from our ministry, and that cost was paid out of our ministry's budget. A member from the minister's staff went, and that was paid for out of the minister's Transportation and Highways budget.

M. de Jong: Help me with the math, then. I've got two individuals whose costs were covered by this ministry's budget. That, quite frankly, is what the Minister of Transportation and Highways told us.

[1455]

M. de Jong: Okay. Maybe my colleagues and I weren't being clear when. . . . But to help the minister, when the opposition asks how much money you are spending on trade missions, it is not terribly helpful if the minister provides an amount that relates to only one portion of his budget. He will appreciate, I think, that what we're trying to ascertain is how much money his ministry -- from whatever department and whatever internal budget they may have -- is spending. So if the $120,000 or the $82,000 or the $121,000 figure only relates to ministers, that's not very helpful.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will get you the total travel bill for BCTIO. We can break it out for you, and we commit to doing that. What we have here for you today is the information on ministers' travel, and we've given you those figures. So we will get you the numbers for the entire BCTIO office. That's their job; in fact, a significant part of BCTIO's operations is travel on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

M. de Jong: I'm not disputing that fact. I'm only trying to impress upon the minister that when we look at things like the org charts, we're looking at the ministry. And there may be any number of divisions within that ministry. The bottom line that the opposition and taxpayers want to know is: how much is the government spending? The fair question for this minister is: how much is his ministry spending?

When he went through the various journeys and missions and exchanges that took place last year, I didn't hear the minister refer to the previous mission that took place in India. I was given to understand that that was something that also fell within. . . . There was a number of ministers or at least one minister. He didn't mention that trip. I'm now speaking about your 1998 calendar year.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that the trip the member is talking about took place in fiscal year '98. What we're talking about here is fiscal year '99 -- the numbers I've given the hon. member. So it would be back a year and not part of the figures that I gave him.

M. de Jong: I'm reminded that that took place, I think, in February '98. Just so I can confirm, who led that mission on behalf of the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it was Minister Sihota, who at that time was MLA Sihota.

M. de Jong: Returning then to this fiscal year, which is properly the subject of discussions here, what is the budgeted amount for the much larger trip that is apparently being planned to India later this year?

[1500]

M. de Jong: Am I correct, though, that there is a mission specifically planned for India in the next six months?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a follow-up mission planned for the fall or sometime in early January next year.

M. de Jong: Who is scheduled to lead that trade delegation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is yet to be determined.

M. de Jong: Well, indulge me. How exactly are those determinations made? I guess I'm having some difficulty understanding how these trips arise and how they presume to fit into some overall strategy. I have, for example, the Minister of Transportation and Highways telling me that he was involved in a preparatory mission with some very specific objectives that I'm sure he would tell us were met and that were designed to dovetail into a follow-up trip later this year. I

[ Page 13746 ]

I'm having some difficulty understanding. . . . If this is all very vague, how do you budget? How do you establish a budget if these things are developed on what appears to be a very ad hoc basis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said yesterday, we plan missions around a number of things. Some are events that are taking place. They may be annual events, or they may be specific events in a particular year that fit with what we're trying to accomplish. At the same time, we may look for opportunities to add on that, because we're there, we can take advantage of. So that may dictate the size or the time of the mission.

We're also looking at who is doing activity in what sector, for example, and what ministers are available to travel. Part of the problem is. . . . Last year I led three missions. There's only so much time that I can devote to. . . . I've got the rest of the portfolio. You've got to find who else is an appropriate minister to lead a particular delegation.

For example, we will be going to Japan later this fall for the Kansai-Canada I event. At the present time it has not been decided yet who will go on that. Normally, I would go on that. It's a key mission for this ministry. But it's also tying in with the Team Canada mission that's being planned, and the question is: are the two going to overlap? If they're going to overlap, maybe it's more appropriate for the Premier to go as opposed to me. Or maybe the two of us should both. . . .

M. de Jong: Maybe that's you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Or maybe it's me. Those are issues that have to be looked at. There may be events going on, and I can't get away, so we have to find another minister who can do that. That's the type of rationale that's applied.

There are also sectoral issues and issues that come up specific to particular ministers. In the case of northeast coal, for example, clearly the Minister of Energy and Mines is very much involved with issues around that, and it's appropriate for him to go to Tokyo. While we're there, if there are opportunities to meet with the steel industry, then we are going to try and take advantage of them to press B.C.'s case.

[1505]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were a number of themes. One is around issues surrounding wood products, education, technical services, our ability to take advantage of the fact that India has very strong links with British Columbia through the sizeable Indo-Canadian population. Plus, they have a growing middle class. It's an emerging nation where we have, I think, the potential to establish significantly better trade links that we currently do. Plus, a major part of that was for B.C.'s participation in the 300th anniversary of Khalsa.

M. de Jong: Let's deal with the second part. Well, let me say this about the first part of the minister's answer: he may want to compare his understanding of the purpose behind that trip, as just expressed, with what the minister who led the delegation had to say about the focus of that trade mission. I guess the most generous thing I can say is that they don't appear to equate.

The minister also -- candidly, I think -- talked about the cultural component to the trip. Fair enough, but is that something that properly should be assigned to the trade ministry's budget? I think the minister is correct that there was a significant feature. . . . I think this trip was designed around participation in those cultural celebrations -- religious celebrations, as it were. Is that something that properly should be assigned to the minister of trade's budget?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Out-of-Canada travel budgets are the domain of this ministry, and that's where they should be. We have the staff that do the work; we have the staff that can ensure that the right people and the right offices are being notified overseas; we have the staff who know who we should be in contact with; we have the staff who can ensure that everything goes the way it's supposed to go; we have the staff that can ensure, in this case, what is a significant cultural component and I think a legitimate one, given the size of the Indo-Canadian population here in British Columbia and the importance of the event. We have objectives that can be tagged or attached with that onto a program. We've got the people that do that. This is exactly where that budget belongs.

M. de Jong: I'm going to leave it at this: I disagree. The minister knows that I was part of the same celebration. But I think it is a bit misleading, from a governmental accounting point of view, to take a trip or an expenditure that was for a specific purpose -- a cultural purpose -- and try to somehow build around it enough other meetings that can somehow cloak the real reason behind the trip.

[1510]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was wood products with MacMillan Bloedel.

M. de Jong: And the follow-up work that was required?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was the same issue: wood products with MacMillan Bloedel.

M. de Jong: So there were no new agreements signed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may be, but we'd have to check for the hon. member.

[ Page 13747 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Probably not when Minister Lali was there.

M. de Jong: I'm just trying to get a better sense of to what extent Crown representatives assume unto themselves, or the Crown assumes unto itself, the responsibility for negotiating contracts of behalf of private companies.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They don't negotiate contracts. That's the business of the private sector. The business of the government is to open doors overseas. That's their job. In terms of the details, we will get the details for him if the member so desires -- of the questions that he was asking. We'd be happy to do that.

M. de Jong: Have any contracts been signed that would involve the purchase or sale of products by British Columbia companies as a result of the trip taken by Minister Lali?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may well be. It's only been two months, but we will endeavour to get that information for the hon. member.

M. de Jong: I'm going to press the minister a little bit. I now regularly read press releases from the government that tout what formerly would be considered relatively minor investments in B.C. -- moves into B.C. by companies that in previous years wouldn't warrant much attention. I have to believe that if even one memorandum of understanding, let alone a contract, had been signed as a result of this trade mission effort, I would have, minimally, a press release and possibly even a videocassette chronicling the development of that MOU or contract.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A lot of contracts don't get signed at the particular time or a particular meeting. What happens is that doors are opened, contacts are established, discussions take place, initiatives may take place and work gets done, and six months down the road there may be a contract signed. There may be further work required, in which case maybe it's something from within our ministry that we can assist in -- perhaps identifying a partner over here or identifying an opportunity or identifying some of the issues that are raised by the overseas company.

In some cases, it may be that the province is requiring additional information or that there's additional work that we want to do on our behalf. But the object is not necessarily. . . . I've said this before. The object is for the private sector to make deals. The government's role is to open the doors and to facilitate. It's quite different in many places -- the United States, for example, where government as a rule plays a very small part. In a number of countries the presence of government officials aids greatly in the ability to get work done.

[1515]

Hon. M. Farnworth: India is a huge nation of 900 million people, with a massive middle class of 90 million to 120 million people. That represents a huge market potential for this province. There is enormous potential in wood products, in housing and in construction. Those are areas that we are interested in pursuing. There is enormous potential in the area of engineering expertise and technical services for British Columbia companies to add value to the work that's being done over there. There are opportunities around there. There are educational opportunities in terms of educational services similar to what we have been pushing and promoting in Asia. All of those things are legitimate enterprises and opportunities for British Columbia. Those are the types of initiatives that we would be pushing on any future mission into India -- the size of which and who is leading are still to be determined. But we're more than happy to brief the member and let him know, when the time comes.

M. de Jong: Not to be trite or dismissive, all of that information is very useful, and it's all available to me from reading a couple of reports. We don't have to go there to know that. We presumably have to go there to follow up and move in some very specific directions. Quite frankly, if we don't have some very specific examples about what it is that we want to come away with, I don't take a lot of comfort from general pronouncements about a huge market potential. I get that, and I think most people do.

What we want to know is that when there are expenditures of upwards -- last year -- of $120,000 in taxpayers' money, the government is going there not with a fishing pole to go trolling for possible announcements but with a specific plan. We want to know what size of fish the government is looking to land, because we want to be able to ascertain whether they were successful or not as a means of determining whether or not the expenditure of funds was a worthwhile expenditure.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I outlined for the member what some of the key objectives are. What we do between now and the time that the mission takes place, for example, is work with businesses who either (a) are already doing business there or (b) want to do business in India. We work with the Canada-India Business Council, for example, in identifying what key objectives we should be trying to do. Those are largely determined by the private sector, and those are very much the stream, if you like, which we follow. We try and shape our activities around those goals and around the objectives of the private sector in the associations that deal with the various nations that we're trying to work with. In this case, it would be the Canada-India Business Council. There is a significant one, and we work with them. We would be happy to give the member a briefing, as the time for the mission gets closer, as to who is going and what the objectives are.

[1520]

[ Page 13748 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will get you the list of companies on the last mission to India that we were working with.

M. de Jong: The last thing for me at this point. . . . In the realm of international trade and investment, I would have difficulty sleeping tonight if I didn't take advantage of this opportunity to ask the minister. . . . I realize that he dealt with some of the Hydro stuff earlier -- those much-discussed negotiations with the Water and Power Development Authority in Pakistan that were leading to an imminent deal for the sale of power from B.C. Hydro's facility in Raiwind. I know the minister would like an opportunity. . . . I know, by the way, that he had a discussion with my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain, but the question wasn't posed. It was unfair to the minister, because I know he wants an opportunity to stand up here and put on the record the fact that a deal has been signed, that we are now in the process of realizing that investment of British Columbia tax dollars, and the power is flowing into the Pakistani grid.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a private joke between the member and myself.

A Voice: I can hear you nodding your head.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You can probably hear both of us nodding our heads on this one.

I will say this right now: our discussion is ongoing. We are still actively working, and I am quite confident that there will be a resolution soon. I know that may not quite be the answer the member's looking for, but there is activity currently underway.

M. de Jong: As the minister is aware, shortly after my quick in-and-out of Lahore, I posed the question to him as a means of getting an update. At that time, as we heard over a year ago, the conclusion of those negotiations was imminent. It was imminent again in April; it is apparently imminent again now. I say candidly, as a result of the few days I spent there, that I disagree. All of the evidence I heard is that there is no market for this power, at least in the minds of the Pakistani authorities. I don't think we do the taxpayers of B.C. a service -- I think we do them a disservice -- by not acknowledging that fact. I know that the minister's officials and some of the officials with their partner at Lavalin were exploring the possibility of direct power sales to India. I think it is fair to say, for obvious diplomatic reasons, that that isn't in the offing these days.

If this thing has come off the rails, as it clearly has, not all of the blame. . . . I think the blame for the original investment lies squarely at the feet of the government. If some of the difficulties associated with the negotiations at this stage of the game are attributable elsewhere, that is a discussion we can have. But if this has become a write-off -- which I have to tell the minister candidly, from my few days there and discussions, it appears to have become -- then let's say that. Let the minister be forthright in acknowledging that fact.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know the member's views on the power plant in Raiwind, and I know the interest he has shown in the power plant in Raiwind. I know that when he went to India, he went to Raiwind and looked at the plant. He would also realize that the situation in Pakistan is still quite chaotic. He would know that there is a lot of activity taking place on the part of the different companies that are over there trying to get their power systems connected to the grid and to get contracts honoured. I understand his frustration; I think we share that frustration as well.

What I can tell the member is that I don't think we're at the point yet where we would or should write it off. I am quite confident right now that enough activity is taking place that may bring a resolution to this issue and that we should continue down that path at the current time.

[1525]

The one thing that we didn't have a chance to discuss in the other House during the 30 seconds of question period. . . . The minister is likely, I think, aware that the individual who was the subject of so much speculation several years ago here in British Columbia, Mr. Mahmood, is back in charge of the project, in charge of SEPCOL. He is back in Islamabad and holding court and making negotiations. I think the fair question to the minister is: as a partner in this particular venture, is he troubled, and is the government troubled, that an individual who was reluctant -- in fact, I think he refused -- to cooperate with the investigations that have taken place here is back in charge of the project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not aware in what capacity, if any, Mr. Mahmood is back or not back. I know he was out of SEPCOL. And if he's back in SEPCOL, clearly I just want to make sure that. . . . My understanding is that he's not involved with BCHIL, and he's not involved with Hydro. If he's involved with SEPCOL, that's an issue in Pakistan. I have never met Mr. Mahmood, and I have no desire to meet Mr. Mahmood.

M. de Jong: Well, the latter statement -- and it may have been made in jest -- is, I think, a curious one insofar as Mr. Mahmood is presently again the chairman of SEPCOL, which owns the facility and operates the facility. So we are, via B.C. Hydro and its various affiliates, a part of that agency. But I would have thought that at a minimum, the minister would have preferred that this gentleman had cooperated with the investigation that the government launched. Members of the government, at least on the surface, professed disappointment that he wouldn't cooperate.

In fairness to the minister, he said he doesn't want to meet Mr. Mahmood. I thought that quite the opposite would have been the case -- that he would have preferred that Mr. Mahmood would have come to British Columbia and provided answers to the questions that continue to hang over this project insofar as the investment, the investors and the mechanism by which those investments were made.

[1530]

[ Page 13749 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Lest the member take any of my comment. . . . It was a jest more than anything else. But if there are questions that Mr. Mahmood could answer or if there are issues that Mr. Mahmood could address, I quite frankly. . . . It's not me that should be speaking to him; it is the RCMP who should be speaking to him. Or it's the people around the investigation that took place who should be speaking to him. That is what I think would be the appropriate thing to have happened.

B. Penner: Well let's get this debate back on the rails -- headed toward a discussion of trade missions. I recall that a few minutes ago in question period there was some discussion about travel expenses incurred by the Premier in pursuit of three aluminum smelters for British Columbia. Are any of those costs picked up by the Ministry of Employment and Investment? And if so, are they included in the figure of $82,000 that is budgeted this year for trade mission travel?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the May 11-12 trip that took place last year, we would have picked up $5,400 of that cost in this ministry.

B. Penner: From that answer I conclude that the ministry doesn't pick up all of the cost of the Premier's travel when he goes to various places in North America. Is that a correct assessment on my part?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's all of the costs associated with the Premier on that trip, and they were picked up by this ministry.

B. Penner: All right. I think I recall the Premier making more than one trip in his quest to bring a new aluminum smelter to British Columbia. What about those costs? Who paid for those costs -- which ministry? Well, we know the taxpayers paid for the costs, but which ministry was it charged to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This ministry. But one of those trips took place in the previous fiscal. So one took place in fiscal '98, which we've got the figures for right here; the other one took place before March 31 of last year.

B. Penner: So anytime the Premier gets on a plane and flies somewhere in North America in pursuit of an aluminum smelter or perhaps to rescue Canadian Airlines, that cost gets charged to the budget of the Ministry of Employment and Investment that is targeted for trade missions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

B. Penner: Earlier my colleague from Matsqui asked some questions about a trade trip to India involving the member for Yale-Lillooet. Who in government decides which minister gets to go where at the cost of the Employment and Investment ministry? Does the minister favour a consensus model of decision-making, or does the minister take responsibility for deciding which minister goes where on behalf of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Decisions are taken within this ministry, and it's based on a number of factors. What is the nature of the event? What is the theme of the event? What is the theme of the mission? What is happening here in the province? For some things there are events going on or issues that don't allow people to be away at a particular time or to go on a particular mission. So those are a number of factors, but the decisions around missions are made in this ministry.

B. Penner: Therefore the minister is ultimately responsible for the decisions as to which minister travels to which country on behalf of the province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We decide on the content of the missions; they're approved within this ministry. The Premier is the one who decides who can be out of the country, and then, to a certain extent, so do you -- by virtue of you being opposition and whether or not we're sitting in the House.

[1535]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This ministry deals with overseas trade for the province of British Columbia, and it deals with the issues facing this province. We manage that budget within our overall global budget. If it means that we're concerned about issues going on and that we feel that certain issues or missions are a particularly high priority, then we're going to make those decisions. That's our job. Our job is to ensure that if we need to be represented in Europe, for example, on forestry issues or when Greenpeace is threatening the forest industry, we're going to make sure that we're there. If we're concerned about what's happening, for example, in Japan and the Asian economy, and we need to be there, we will be there. If we can be in Japan, for example, at the Tokyo Home Show, where I was this past year. . . . I sat down with the minister of housing for what was supposed to be a 20-minute meeting but it turned into an hour. We discussed issues around housing in terms of housing construction in Japan. He's familiar with British Columbia, and he's revamping the Japan building code. Our interest is, is to make sure that our interests are represented -- that if they don't affect our lumber producers, then we're going to be there.

If it means that the Premier is going to go to the United States to meet with executives of aluminum companies to pursue them to come to British Columbia, we're going to do that. If it means that we're going to try and start to expand and take opportunities that arise because of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. . . . If we want to start to establish trade links between a growing Latin American community here in British Columbia and South America and Mexico and start to take advantage of that by letting Mexican business people know about the opportunities in British Columbia, we're going to do that. That's the job of this ministry.

B. Penner: I don't mean any disrespect to the minister, but he's just given us a whole list of reasons that he thinks

[ Page 13750 ]

It seems to me that an appropriate approach would be to try and measure some results here and try to target our spending on quantifiable results so that we know that the taxpayers' interests are being served. Toward that goal I'd like to ask the minister: in the past year, in all of the trade missions that he recited earlier, were any trade agreements signed? And what was the value of any agreements signed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We manage within a global travel budget -- within an overall ministry budget that includes the deputy's budget, which is some $450,000. It goes up and down from year to year.

In '97 we spent less than half the allotted amount. But we are going to take advantage of the opportunities, and we will respond to the issues that affect British Columbia. If it means that at the end of the year we're over, we're over, but we are managing within the overall corporate budget for B.C. trade and investment. It may mean that it impacts, for example, on the other travel budgets -- on the deputy's travel budget. But if it's required, and if we want to ensure that British Columbia interests are met and British Columbia objectives are met, then we will do that. That's a key priority.

The member asked about some of the concrete things that took place. I can tell you that meeting with the Japanese housing minister, for example, was crucial, because we were able to identify some of the key issues that are arising as they relate to the forest industry, particularly to the coastal hemlock industry. We want to ensure that the changes that they make to their building code are advantageous to us -- or, at the very least, don't impact on us -- particularly when we're seeing competition from Chile, Norway, Russia, the Baltics and New Zealand in different types of timber that are coming into Japan to compete with B.C. lumber. When they're looking at changing their standards around issues such as strength and structural stability, all those things have to be done.

[1540]

It's an opportunity for us to get the message out that British Columbia has an aerospace industry that's growing. When you talk to people over there, the message that was coming was: "Yes, we're interested in Canada." But it's Ottawa or Montreal; they don't think of Vancouver. But because of the presence, we were able to entice companies to come here to Vancouver and participate in that show, which showcases the aerospace industry here. So there's a whole slew of things and a whole slew of activities, and we will be where we need to be.

B. Penner: Thank you for that answer. Let me repeat the question: were any specific agreements signed? I think the minister mentioned one or two arrangements that were agreed to. But could the minister provide us with a list of agreements that have been signed, for example, in the past year or commit to have staff provide us with such a list, including the dollar value of agreements that were negotiated as a result of trade missions undertaken in the past year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we will.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister can give us an idea of when we can look forward to receiving that information.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As soon as we can get it.

B. Penner: Following a completed trade mission, does the ministry undertake a review to determine whether or not its objectives for that particular trade mission were met? And if so, what are the criteria by which trade missions are measured as to whether they're a success?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we do undertake a review. Yes, we do assess the criteria. And yes, we do take follow-up actions. There are a number of criteria by which we do assessments. Some, for example, are in terms of: are the right people meeting; did they get to meet the people they were intended to meet; did we get to raise the issues that we wanted to raise with the people that we wanted to; and if it's a specific initiative, does it result in a contract being signed and are there jobs created here in British Columbia? There are a whole series of goals and initiatives that relate to each mission, and they are evaluated upon our return.

B. Penner: Is there a standard set of criteria that is applied during this assessment process?

[1545]

B. Penner: I'll look forward to that. The member for Matsqui came across an issue earlier: the figure given by the minister for ministerial travel related to trade missions did not include the cost of travel for the staff that go with the ministers. Could the minister tell me how much is spent in any given year by his ministry to pay for the travel costs -- air fare, hotels, meals, etc. -- for the staff that accompany, or don't accompany, ministers on trade missions? I can contemplate situations where senior staff may travel abroad or to other places in Canada on behalf of the ministry without ministers being present. What is that budget?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $450,000.

B. Penner: Just to confirm that I heard it correctly, was that $450,000? Was that the amount budgeted for last year? I'd like a comparison to the actual for last year.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will get the exact number for you, but I think it is less than last year's.

B. Penner: I'd like to move to the topic of foreign offices, if I may. I don't think this matter was touched on last year. What is the current budget for B.C. House in London?

[ Page 13751 ]

B. Penner: Can the minister tell us how that budget has fluctuated over the last two or three years? I'm wondering if there has been a trend upwards with regard to that particular budget.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Last year it was $250,000.

B. Penner: Can the minister account for the increase?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In part, the exchange rates. That is the primary reason.

B. Penner: Has the minister kept track of how B.C. exports have been doing in terms of the U.K. market? Are we showing any significant and/or direct benefits by having B.C. House open in London?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Our principal focus in the U.K. with B.C. House is primarily defensive, particularly around the resource sector as it relates to the forest industry -- to deal with Greenpeace issues, certification issues around lumber and those sorts of things. As well, it focuses on technology companies.

B. Penner: We didn't hear from the minister an answer about how B.C. exports are doing in terms of the U.K. market. The reason I ask that question is that earlier during these estimates debates, the minister made a comment that B.C. has perhaps not paid as much attention as it could to the European market. That made me wonder what kind of value we're getting for the investment we're making in B.C. House in London. Are we seeing clear benefits by having a presence there? I can understand that there would be some intangible benefits by having a place to conduct discussions and facilitate negotiations, but I wonder if there are any hard numbers to back up the possible merit or success of B.C. House in London.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I make my points, I just want to clarify that the London office also represents all of western Europe -- all of Europe. It doesn't just deal with the U.K.

In terms of exports to the U.K., though, they have gone down over a number of years, whereas trade with western Europe as a whole had a low in the early nineties, but that has been increasing since then and is currently on an upward swing.

B. Penner: Have B.C. exports to Europe, including the United Kingdom, gone down simply as a percentage of B.C. exports in total, or has the actual dollar value of B.C. exports to western Europe decreased?

[1550]

B. Penner: I think I have the minister correct when he says that we're increasing our percentage of exports to Europe and also that the dollar value of those exports would be increasing to western Europe. Is that correct? I see that the minister is nodding his head -- as my colleague would say, I can hear the minister nodding his head.

Moving to the now-closed B.C. trade centre in Seattle, what were its total operating expenses versus revenues during its operations from 1993 to 1997? I believe that was the life of the project. That may be a rather broad question for the staff. I don't mean to impose an undue burden, but again, this is a topic that was not canvassed last year. Shortly after the closure of the Seattle trade office, from time to time the official opposition received some comments and inquiries from the private sector about what happened with the Seattle trade office. I'd like to have an opportunity to explore that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're going back a few years, but in terms of revenue, it was approximately $10,000 in '93-94, and I think that it was about $60,000 in '96-97.

B. Penner: Don't those figures relate to the net losses of the operation? Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've got the profit-and-loss for each year. September '93 through March '94, it lost $30,000. April '94 through March '95, it lost $34,000. April '95 through March '96, it lost $20,000. From April 1, 1996, to November 22, 1996, it made $1,663.

B. Penner: What was the B.C. Trade and Investment Office's financial exposure when the trade centre closed in Seattle?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was about $900 a month for 22 months.

B. Penner: I conclude from that, then, that the B.C. government was left on the hook of a lease for 22 months following the date of closure of the office. I'm told that according to an article in the periodical known as Business in Vancouver, former trade centre director Michael Clark was quoted as saying: "The Buffalo, New York, company that took over the trade centre did not pay any money to take it over." I'm wondering if you could provide some details about how that could be. What is the province having to pay on an ongoing basis for that trade centre? Are we still locked into the lease that we had for that facility?

[1555]

B. Penner: Are all of our obligations with respect to the Seattle trade office now complete? Is there any ongoing financial cost to the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

B. Penner: Yes, there is an ongoing cost, or yes, there is not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is not.

B. Penner: Yes, we have no bananas.

[ Page 13752 ]

I want to give the minister a chance to talk about what his ministry is doing in the Pacific Northwest of North America. I can think of a couple of organizations or initiatives that are involved in this region of the world. There's the Cascadia group, and occasionally I manage to attend meetings held by that organization. Also, there's the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, known by the acronym PNWER. I know they have an upcoming meeting starting this Sunday in Edmonton. I think they meet twice a year. I'll just give the minister a chance to elaborate on our commitment, if that's the appropriate term, in terms of organizations in this part of the world.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're very interested in those organizations -- PNWER. We're interested in the Pacific Northwest. We have a very close relationship with Washington State and Oregon, and we recognize that we share common interests -- the Georgia basin initiative, for example. And I recognize the member's interest in those organizations, which is why in fact I've approved that he go to the Edmonton PNWER conference, if he so wishes. And the bill for that will be paid by this ministry. So we do recognize that. I don't know if you've been notified, but I approved that a couple of days ago, I think. I talked to the chair of that committee and said that if the member for Chilliwack wants to go, I think he should.

B. Penner: That's a kind and generous offer. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend. The notice was a bit late. I just received word yesterday from the member for Rossland-Trail. There was a bit of a communication mixup, and I will not be able to attend. However, I hope that the conference is a success.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how much his ministry is contributing, on an annual basis, to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. My understanding is that of the two provinces -- British Columbia and Alberta -- and the five U.S. states -- Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon. . . . Each of those jurisdictions is expected to pay annual dues. I'm wondering how much the province of British Columbia pays.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $25,000.

B. Penner: How much, if anything, is the provincial government -- through the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- contributing to the organization known as Cascadia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We contribute $75,000 over two years in relation to the TEA-21 corridor, the B.C.-Washington. . . . It's the ISTEA program in the United States for highway infrastructure improvements 60 kilometres either side of the border. We participate in that function.

B. Penner: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I've tried to follow, as best I can, the. . . . I think it's known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. It has authorized, I believe, approximately $200 billion (U.S.) in federal spending over seven or eight years, which will parceled out to various states to assist them in their transportation infrastructure. Washington State is in line to receive a fair chunk of that money. I know that their state legislators, through their transportation committee, have expressed an interest in partnering with British Columbia to harness some of that potential for investing that money in improving border links, whether it's the I-5-Highway 99 connection south of White Rock or improving passenger rail links between Vancouver and Seattle or the transfer of goods between the port of Vancouver, the port of Seattle and the port of Tacoma.

[1600]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are very interested in this program. It is a really unique opportunity for British Columbia and in fact for most of the border provinces with the U.S. We are trying to ensure that Washington and B.C. can work together. The Premier has written to the Governor of Washington State, saying that we're very interested and that we want to cooperate. That's why we're funding the $75,000.

We're trying to identify a couple of people here in British Columbia as well as in Washington State who can liaise together and form a working committee that can navigate each other's jurisdiction's hoops, of which there are a considerable number on each side of the border. I'll be pleased to give the member -- our staff will give the member -- a much fuller and in-depth briefing, if he so desires. I view it as a priority, as does the government.

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

B. Penner: I'm happy to hear the minister say that it is a priority. I don't want to see us miss out on an opportunity to perhaps take advantage of some American taxpayers' money. It could be a rare opportunity indeed. Again, I appreciate that. In the past, I have encountered former Premier Mike Harcourt at some of these Cascadia meetings. I believe he is either the official or the unofficial representative of the province of British Columbia. We've had some interesting discussions.

I think that my colleague the member for Okanagan West is interested in me sitting down. I'll finish with one last question: can the minister inform us as to this government's plans for the upcoming Team Canada trade mission? What are we hoping to accomplish? Do we have a specific list of objectives? How many people from this government will be travelling on that trade mission and at what budgeted cost?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have staff in Ottawa right now -- a staff person in Ottawa who is working on this particular project. He arrives back later today, so we will have a much clearer idea of the scope of the mission in terms of the size and who is expected to go. We will have at least, I would suspect,

[ Page 13753 ]

[1605]

I know that in the past the federal government has tried to operate the Team Canada trade missions on a cost recovery basis. They charge business delegates -- private sector participants -- a fee to participate. I believe that each event costs about $1,000 (Canadian) to attend -- at least, I believe that's what I paid when I went on the trade mission to Bangkok, Thailand, in 1997. There was a per-venue charge, or you could pay a global charge. I couldn't afford to go to all three events, so I just paid for the Thailand event. If my memory serves me correctly, it was about $1,000 (Canadian).

I wonder: does the province benefit from that cost recovery program? Or do those proceeds only benefit the federal government? Does the province still have to pay? So that this can be my last time up on my feet, I'll ask the minister if he was able to get the cost breakdown for this fine publication, "Investment Climate" -- if we know how much each one of those costs to produce.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, we will get the cost breakdown on that brochure for the hon. member.

In terms of the mission itself, do the cost charges offset? Not really, because British Columbia has to pay for a number of events themselves, including receptions.

S. Hawkins: I want to move more into the investment side now, if I could. We canvassed the business plan, and we went through some different sections of the ministry, such as trade. I wonder if the ministry has an investment policy or strategy, and I wonder if the minister could just spell it out briefly for me.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we do have a plan, and I would say that it focuses around two main themes. One is to add value in the resource industry. The other is around technology -- to move to creating a critical mass in key technological sectors in the economy.

S. Hawkins: If this is a written policy or strategy, would the minister commit to sharing it with us?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

S. Hawkins: In the interests of time, I wonder if the minister can, with that policy, list the functions the ministry carries out to improve B.C.'s investment climate within the context of that policy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the key elements is to look at and to ensure that reinvestment is taking place so that we grow our domestic companies here in the province. The second is to identify those key areas of the economy which we're trying to grow and see investment take place in. For example, it may be looking at making sure that we identify key sectors or key needs within a sector. How do we address them? Is it a question of trying to attract new investment? Is it a question of trying to deal with red tape, for example, or is it a question of dealing with regulations? It encompasses all those things.

[1610]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're looking at probably about $1.3 million for strategic industries. That's down over previous years, because the overall budget is down as well.

S. Hawkins: Then, for that million dollars, if the minister doesn't have that information now, could he commit to detailing that for me?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps this is a follow-up from the last question, but does B.C. have an industrial policy?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have policies based on a sectoral basis, so there's an energy strategy, a high-tech strategy, a forest policy. It's done on a sectoral basis.

S. Hawkins: Could the minister commit to getting me those policies that are written down?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we will.

S. Hawkins: I'd like to move on, then, to the fund that I had made reference to before, the natural resource community fund. I understand that this fund was set up effective April 1, 1992, and it was established under the Natural Resource Community Fund Act. I appreciate the information from the briefing and the information that the ministry staff provided for us. My understanding is that this is a special statutory fund. It was established to assist communities that are largely dependent, I guess, on single-resource industry. It was supposed to help those communities to adjust to severe economic declines that were a result of business closures or industry workforce reductions.

The auditor general did a review of this fund. I was actually quite disappointed to note that since its creation, the fund has earned $54 million in revenues from natural resources and $7 million in investment income, and in that time it has transferred $49 million back to general revenues and paid out less than $2 million in assistance to eligible communities. I'm just wondering if the minister can tell me why the fund is set up and collecting that much money but not really putting out very much assistance to communities. We know that in the last couple of years or more there have been significant downturns in the economy. Communities have been hit hard. There have been communities that seemed to fit the criteria of this fund, but this fund wasn't resourced to help those communities. I wonder if the minister can tell me why this fund wasn't used for those purposes.

[ Page 13754 ]

[1615]

I'll give the minister another example here, and I'll give him the response of the authority to it. Back at the 1997 UBCM -- and I think that the minister was actually the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time of that one -- the Premier announced in his speech, with some considerable fanfare, a $10 million fund, which, as I recall, was entitled a community infrastructure investment fund. This was to be a $10 million fund which, as the name implied, could be borrowed by communities and put towards investments in infrastructure in those communities. Well, the announcement was good, and the idea was perhaps good.

But the only problem with it is that the $10 million fund has been sitting there for two years without any takers on it. The reason for that is that the criteria for use or for borrowing from the community infrastructure investment fund are identical to the criteria for borrowing from the MFA generally. So not surprisingly, people are just using the standard MFA route.

I suggested to FRBC at one of the select standing committee meetings that possibly they should revisit the criteria which underlie that program, given that it had not been used by anyone. There had never been a cent go out from the program. The only money that had gone out from the program was money returned to FRBC as investment income from it sitting there.

My sense is that something very similar is happening here, where we have a fund which is theoretically devoted to a noble cause -- emergency assistance to resource-based communities -- but which, for perhaps a variety of very reasonable and appropriate reasons, has not been used because other mechanisms have stepped in and done the same thing. In saying that, though, I think that we then need to move on and say: "Okay, if this fund is not doing the job that it was set up to do, let's not kid ourselves anymore about what its purpose is and the reason for its existence. Let's honestly have a look at what we're doing here and address it."

I'd like at the outset here to give the minister an opportunity to do what the CEO of FRBC did, which was to agree with me that they should revisit the criteria in light of the lack of use of the program that had been created.

[1620]

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear that. Hopefully, when we return here next year -- if indeed we do. . . . Perhaps we'll be on other sides of the. . . . Who knows? But when we return next year, we certainly will be looking for some action in this regard, because I think this is an issue that's been raised by the opposition in previous years, but we haven't seen any move in that regard. Clearly, accepting the problem is a big part of getting there, and I'm delighted to see that.

The allocation of 0.5 percent from petroleum, natural gas, mineral and forest revenues -- does that continue, notwithstanding the lack of expenditures under this program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it continues. It's capped at $25 million. Anything over that goes back to the general revenue.

G. Abbott: But the point is that we continue to tax in those areas, to pull in revenues from those areas, despite the fact that we're looking at revenues of $8.475 million and possibly a nominal expenditure of $10,000 from this program. So I think what we have here is an opportunity for the government to ease a tax burden -- a minor one, perhaps, but a tax burden -- for a program that apparently is serving nothing other than general revenue. Would the minister agree?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's on the base; it's not incremental. So that's where it is.

I. Chong: I appreciate what the minister has responded to from the Forests critic's questions on this fund. The minister has said that perhaps it is time to revisit the criteria. But inasmuch as this fund was the creation of an act, why would there be a necessity to revisit the criteria? It should be spelled out very clearly, what this fund is to be used for. I'm wondering why the fund isn't being used for the purpose that the act has stated that it should be used for -- namely, to assist in communities where they have been dependent on a single industry and where there has been some economic devastation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, your hon. colleague just said that maybe we should revisit the criteria.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, I mean, he raised the issue. I said that maybe it is time to revisit it, in part because there are other programs in place and other things that have happened since 1992 to try and get moneys to resource communities in distress in the province. That's why I'm saying it. Just because

[ Page 13755 ]

I. Chong: I would say to the minister that, yes, my colleague would have suggested that it's time to revisit the criteria. My interpretation is simply that the criteria haven't been looked at, from what it appears. No assistance has been forthcoming.

What I would like to do is ask some specific questions based on what I've seen in the estimates book. I see that $10,000 has been allocated for expenses "for training and skill development, worker relocation, job creation and maintenance and other costs which may be deemed necessary," as I understand it. Can the minister advise what examples there would be of other costs that may be deemed necessary?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a nominal amount to deal with if we get an application that would, let's say, be used to access that fund. Right now that fund is viewed as one of last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted. As I said, there are a number of measures in place right now to deal with communities in crisis. So it's very much a nominal amount, and that's why it's there.

[1625]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

I. Chong: Can the minister just advise whether there are any communities currently before this ministry that they are investigating as potential candidates for the 1999-2000 year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there are currently two applications, one from Stewart and one from Lillooet.

I. Chong: Can you elaborate or provide us with the names of those two applications? What I'm trying to determine is the extent of the applications that are before this ministry. Can he provide that information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think one is for dredging the bottom of a river. That's one of the problems. It's an adjustment fund. That's its initial intent, as opposed to an economic development fund. But there may be ways of dealing with those issues or those things that they want through other areas of government.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me how many other statutory funds. . . ? I understood from the briefing that there are general revenue and just this fund. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, including the industrial incentive fund.

S. Hawkins: I'm interested. . . . The minister said that this was a fund of last resort, and I'm wondering how communities find out about this fund. It seems to me that the fund accumulated, well, $54 million in revenues from natural resources over the last six years. If the minister can give me details on how many communities apply every year and how communities find out that this fund actually exists for their assistance, I would be interested in that information.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Communities know all about this fund.

S. Hawkins: How many communities -- if I can get statistics -- applied per year over the six-year period of that fund?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We'll get you the information, and we'll break it down to those who seem to be serious and those who want it for things like golf courses -- which some do, believe it or not.

I. Chong: The other fund that we'd like to canvass is the industrial incentive fund. The first question I'd like to ask the minister is that I see that the disbursements from this account, which are representing new loans and investments, are estimated for the '99-2000 year to be $75 million, which is an increase of $30 million over last year. I'm wondering how the ministry is planning to disburse the extra $30 million in loans and investments for this year, if the minister can provide some information, and how the ministry's investment and loan strategy has changed from last year, if in fact it has changed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The purpose is to make strategic investments in strategic sectors of the economy with companies that have the ability to make investments or to make critical investment decisions in a particular area of the industry. The loans are made on commercial terms.

[1630]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, there have been no changes.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise what were some of the loans and investments provided by the ministry during the last fiscal year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They include, for example, Avcorp Industries in aerospace. They include JPC-recommended proposals such as J.S. McMillan Fisheries, Pacific Precision Wood Products, C-Ged Forest Products and the Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Cooperative.

I. Chong: I note that the critic has received a listing of approved projects for '99-2000 for which the $75 million has been budgeted. Of the budget amount, the approved appropriations amount to $54.25 million. That still leaves another $21 million -- just under $20 million.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $20,750,000.

I. Chong: That's right. Can the minister advise. . . ? Are there currently more pending projects not on an approved list that would take up substantially all of this or even more than this?

[ Page 13756 ]

I. Chong: Can the minister advise: if they were to receive more applications than what was anticipated, is there authority to go beyond the $75 million anticipated budgeted amount?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I'd have to go back to the House to change the legislation.

I. Chong: I guess we'll wait and see if we have legislation. I was curious, because I know that in the current year we did receive a briefing from ministry staff about Western Star. For clarification, would that not have been a part of the projects under the industrial incentive fund? Or where would that have been budgeted from?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it was done outside this fund, through the Ministry of Finance in a fiscal agency loan agreement.

I. Chong: The other comparison I saw in the budget estimates books: in the '98-99 year there was $5 million anticipated as a loan repayment, the receipts, and in '99-2000 only $4 million. Can the minister very quickly advise why there was an anticipated $1 million decrease? Did someone default in some way?

[1635]

I. Chong: I can leave the industrial incentive fund for now; those were just some very quick questions. I think I'd like to move on to the Four Corners Community Savings bank at this time. I'd like to start off by saying to the minister that I do believe it would be fair to say that the purpose and the goal of the Four Corners bank is supportable, as has been stated by other members on this side of the House in previous years.

But what has been a concern and what continues to arise each and every year is the validity of the program. Questions occur as to whether this is a good use of taxpayers' money or, more important, whether this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars. With that in mind, the questions that I have are to canvass, in particular, the use of taxpayers' money and the appropriateness of it, not that the goal or the intent was not a good idea or supportable.

I've received the financial statements for the year '97-98. I note the March '98 year-end, and I note that the statements were prepared or published and that the auditor's report was sometime in May. I'm wondering if the March '99 statements have been prepared in the same timely fashion as the previous year and whether those would be available.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand that the statements are still being audited -- that they have yet to be audited. I have not received them yet either.

I. Chong: So they're a little bit further behind than last year. Can I ask the minister for a commitment that we will be able to receive them upon publication to himself?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

I. Chong: I should just say to the minister that I appreciate that he's confirmed it will be forthcoming, because I understand that some inquiries that were made from our staff to whoever it was who had authority to discuss the Four Corners bank indicated that we would not be able to receive those, nor would they be forthcoming, and that we would perhaps have to FOI them. So it's reassuring to know that the minister has given me that confirmation, because there's nothing there that should provide any difficulty.

I also recollect, from my reading of past debates and research, that there had been a review by FICOM on Four Corners bank and that there were no specific recommendations, other than to pursue deposits more aggressively. Can the minister advise whether that has been successful in the context of that recommendation?

[1640]

I. Chong: In the area of the deposits, can the minister advise what sources these deposits are coming from in general?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't give specific names, partly because that's private, but they run the whole spectrum from institutional to private individuals, societies, businesses, community groups -- the whole spectrum of people who make deposits. A number of churches, for example, have made deposits. So there's a whole spectrum. They are aggressively pursuing people to increase their deposit base.

I. Chong: In the context of that, would the administration have a summary of categories of the types the minister has just indicated -- how much they have on deposit from the institutional group, how much from private individuals and how much from societies and business -- just a makeup of the kinds of deposits that are coming into the Four Corners bank.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can try and get a breakdown of that information for the hon. member. But roughly, for example, private investors are probably around $5.5 million. I gather unions have invested about $3.5 million. We can try and get a better breakdown for the hon. member.

I. Chong: I think that would be helpful, because as in any bank, if it's to be credible and is pursuing deposits, certainly those who are running the bank would want to pursue those areas that they've not been as successful in, or concentrate on those areas that would appear to favour having their deposits at Four Corners.

[ Page 13757 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I really have no idea, because that's the business of the organization that makes the deposit. That's one of the challenges. You can have a broad idea of where a fund is from, but in terms of an organization outside of government, that would be their private business.

I. Chong: I guess the minister's last comment, that it would be their private business, would also beg the question of whether, in the definition of "private investment" or "private companies," that would refer to unions. But I'm not going to pursue that.

[1645]

Hon. M. Farnworth: About $13 million.

I. Chong: That $13 million would represent over half of the $22 million, so a substantial amount of deposits which the Four Corners administration wanted to aggressively pursue came from government. Can the minister advise, or has the staff information available as to whether that $13 million was from one, two, three, five agencies, boards or Crowns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's from three Crown corporations.

I. Chong: And would the minister be able to share with us the breakdown of those three Crowns that make up the $13 million?

Hon. M. Farnworth: FRBC, ICBC and BCTFA -- the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

I. Chong: Can he also share with us the breakdown of the $13 million?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have that information here. I think that's a decision of each of the Crown corporations, and I'm not sure I could get that information or whether you would have to make a request of each of the Crown corporations themselves.

I. Chong: I just had hoped that we could get an idea, because of those three -- BCTFA, ICBC, FRBC. . . . Certainly they have the subject of some intense debate, and the breakdown of them certainly would be helpful for members on this side. But if the minister is unable to provide that, perhaps he can commit to finding out if that information can be made available and then provide it to us, if that's possible.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It may be a question of the information being publicly available, or of the information being released by each individual agency themselves. Regardless of which way it is, we will endeavour to find out that information for the hon. member.

I. Chong: Recognizing that sometimes it is difficult to search through records and to look at financial statements of a billion-dollar Crown corporation, or a multimillion-dollar Crown corporation. . . . Certainly it is very difficult, when you see cash on deposit sitting on the balance sheet, to determine of that cash on deposit which bank accounts they've had their funds invested in. Clearly it would be easier for the minister than it would be for members on this side of the House to try to investigate.

Along that line, I was amazed to hear that $13 million of the $22 million in deposits did come from three specific Crowns. Can the minister advise whether this is a policy that Four Corners is going to be continuing to pursue in the '99-2000 year and future years, given that the recommendation from FICOM was to pursue deposits? It appears that we've pursued them right into the Crowns. Can the minister advise whether this will be a continued policy?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We encourage Four Corners to aggressively pursue depositors -- and that would be right across the spectrum from Crowns to individuals and everything in between. But at the end of the day, the final decision is up to the depositors themselves.

[1650]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The same way that other financial institutions do. We have a marketing plan. We go out and, in part, assess our market; we target that market. We make sure that we have competitive rates. Those are some of the tools that we use. And yes, of course, cold calling is one of those tools.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise, through his staff, whether there is a dedicated group of employees who do this or whether that's just a part of the job of the tellers when they're sitting there when it slows down a little?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Three staff.

I. Chong: Is that to mean that there are three full-time staff committed to aggressively pursuing deposits?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Two are dedicated to increasing deposits, and a third assists.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise, for the '99-2000 year, what the full-time-equivalent contingency of staff is at Four Corners at this time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 17.

[ Page 13758 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am happy to confirm for the member that Four Corners Community Savings offers extremely competitive rates in comparison to humongous banks throughout the province. In fact, as of June 10, if you deposited your money at Four Corners Savings, you would earn, on a five-year GIC, 5 percent, compared to a miserly 4.75 percent at the Bank of Montreal and 4.8 percent at the Bank of Nova Scotia. So compared to humongous banks, Four Corners is a much better deal for interest on your money.

[1655]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, it would be quite normal for an institution the size of Four Corners, as a Crown corporation -- whether it was a trust company or a credit union or another financial institution -- to offer more competitive rates than the chartered banks.

I. Chong: I have a little bit of an understanding of trust companies and co-ops and things of that nature, and yes, when you're a small institution, you sometimes have to offer a more competitive rate to get the customer in the door, shall we say. But again, I reiterate, it's the fact that moneys have come from government -- from taxpayers -- that allows Four Corners to exist to begin with, as evidenced by the share-capital investment -- I believe it's up to $10 million now -- and the contributed surplus amount of another million.

Certainly if we were dealing with a private sector financial institution starting from the ground up, it would be their business to do that. But we are talking about a Crown corporation in which all the funds were originally received from taxpayers. But in so much as the fact that Four Corners offers a more competitive deposit rate, can the minister advise how the loan rates would compare with those of commercial institutions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We do commercial loans on commercial terms. We do prime-plus loans, and we do second mortgage loans at 9 percent.

I. Chong: I would presume, then, that those would all be comparable to the commercial lending institutions. If the minister would like to just indicate yes or no.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

I. Chong: The next area of Four Corners that I'd like to ask about is their profitability. I know that it's a difficult issue, because the goal, as I say, of the bank may have originally been for profit, but it appears from the last three years of financial statements that that is just not happening. I'm wondering if the minister knows whether or not the bank has any plans to make a profit and when that might be.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The business plan expected that the bank -- Four Corners -- would lose money for the first several years, but it is expected that we will turn a profit in 2003.

[1700]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been no request for more assistance from the province.

I. Chong: Judging from the financial statements -- the most recent ones that I have, March 1998 -- and looking at, I believe, another document talking about the subsequent events, I recognize that at the 1998 fiscal year-end, there was $7 million contributed, the additional $3 million having been there. So when I see the financials for March '99, I would expect to see the $10 million authorized capital completely and fully issued and no plans to increase the share offering. If the minister can confirm that, would he do so? Before he does, can he also advise. . . ? If in fact there is a requirement, then I would expect that legislation would have to be brought in to increase the share offering. Could he confirm that as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, times three.

I ask that the committee recess for two minutes.

The Chair: This committee will stand recessed for two or three minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

I. Chong: Just before the recess, the minister had responded that, yes, if in fact Four Corners required more funds, it would have to change legislation to do so. He also

[ Page 13759 ]

I also note on the March '98 financial statements that there is an explanation in the notes as to the contributed surplus. A contributed surplus of a million dollars would be returned if in fact Four Corners were to be profitable. Obviously we have seen that it has not been profitable. But there was a time line on that: it said by March 31, 1999. Not seeing the financials for this year, I can't presume that we've created such a huge profit.

Could the minister confirm that that contributed surplus therefore now folds into Four Corners? Or has there been a change to extend that date so that that contributed surplus will in fact -- and may in fact -- be returned to the provincial government general fund?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be extending the date.

I. Chong: The March 31, 1999, date has been extended, so the anticipation is that the contributed surplus would be returned. Can the minister advise as to what date has now been chosen? Would it be March 2003, since that is when the profit is expected, or would it be beyond that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In expectations, with the business plan 2003.

I. Chong: So from that, with the business plan, I would expect that we expecting to see not only a profit by the year 2003 but, in essence, a profit, I would imagine, building up to the year 2003 to eliminate all the accumulated deficit -- which seems an extremely aggressive goal. That's why my question was on whether that date was beyond 2003, because if 2003 is the first year you expect to have a profit, your retained earnings in your balance sheet will still show that you have accumulated deficit, and you couldn't possibly return the contributed surplus. Can he advise, again, as to whether that date is definitely set?

[1710]

I. Chong: I think he means the contributed surplus, but that's fine.

Can the minister advise what measures the bank is undertaking -- or whether it's in conjunction with the ministry -- to make Four Corners more profitable? In reviewing the financial statements for the year '98 and taking a look at the comparison for '97, it would appear that there are limitations as to what the margin of profit would be. There would be a number of fixed costs that are just unavoidable. Are there some specific items that are being done -- so that the minister can find them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Such things as expanding the depositors, increasing the loans, offering things such as RRSPs, trying to introduce services on that basis -- those are some of the products that the bank, Four Corners, is trying to do.

I. Chong: I appreciate that from the minister.

What is the current dollar value of loans that have been approved to date?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The figure I said before: $375,000.

I. Chong: My understanding is that $400,000 in loans had been approved by the middle of May -- I'm not sure if that's this year or last year. It was $400,000 at that point, I'm just wondering whether there had been a larger amount. I expect that it had been larger, and I just wonder if he knows the most up-to-date figures, that's all.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The figure I have is $375,000. If you've got $400,000, it probably means that somebody has come in and borrowed some more money, which is a good thing. I expect that maybe by the end of the week, it will increase again.

I. Chong: I'd like to also pursue the area of ATMs -- automated teller machines or bank machines or whatever they want to call them. There has been a rumour that Four Corners will see an ATM machine in the next two or three months. Can the minister advise if that is accurate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It actually will be an ATM card, as opposed to an ATM machine.

I. Chong: That's a good clarification, because the cost of ATM machines is very high. However, the use of ATM cards would be dependent on other banks having to install and use those.

Can the minister also. . . ? Sorry, just let me back up for a moment. I have heard that there was recently a cheque-cashing company that opened its doors across from Four Corners bank -- which diverts from the original purpose of Four Corners, that people would not have to go to cheque-cashing companies, which were taking more than their share from those who were using the services of Four Corners. Can the minister confirm whether that has occurred and perhaps provide us with an idea of how that came to be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Our understanding is that it has been there for a considerable amount of time, at least since before February '98.

I. Chong: Is the minister aware, through his staff, whether there has been any impact on Four Corners? Is there some difficulty as a result of this competition coming into the area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. In fact, our accounts have grown. There is some. . . . We're not sure of the date, but it may well have been that that cheque-cashing place was there before the bank.

[1715]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's September.

[ Page 13760 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: They've started the next one.

S. Hawkins: There might be some more questions that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head has. If she finds them, and they need to be asked at a later date, perhaps I could get a commitment from the minister. She'll forward them in writing. Will the ministry give her answers back?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

S. Hawkins: In that case, we'll move on to the next section of estimates. An area that the minister is responsible for is gaming. Just yesterday we heard a stunning admission from the Deputy Premier -- in fact, a stunning admission of failure or reversal of fortune or misfortune, I guess maybe we can call it. The government seems to have seen the light. In the Deputy Premier's words -- excuse me, hon. Chair, but I'm going to use them -- he suggested yesterday that the government "get the hell out of gaming." "It seems to me," he said, "it is far more trouble than it is worth."

This is the same minister, the same person, that was pushing the massive expansion in the gaming agenda three or four years ago. It was absolutely stunning yesterday, and I don't know if the NDP's convention coming up this weekend has anything to do with it, that government has -- or government members, cabinet ministers, have -- changed their position. Excuse me if I used a word that was unparliamentary. I will exchange it for "heck" if the Chair wants me to. I was only quoting what I read in the paper this morning.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Your colleagues may get paranoid over that, but I'm not going to ask you to withdraw a word.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. For the information of all members, however, unparliamentary language is never appropriate, whether you're quoting other sources or using your own. I think that both sides already know that, so I will invite the member to continue with her comments.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Chair. And I do ask for forgiveness for directly quoting the Deputy Premier's words that he used yesterday in response to the government getting out -- getting the heck out -- of expansion in gaming.

We do understand that there were members of the government side that were vigorously opposed to the massive expansion in gaming, and certainly I understand the member for Vancouver-Burrard has been very vocal in his opposition, sitting on the government benches. In the past, we've seen the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when she sat on Vancouver city council, voicing that kind of opposition and concern, and certainly the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. Yesterday, it was interesting that the Attorney General also concurred with the Deputy Premier, and, you know, it is quite interesting that different members of the NDP caucus are coming out in support of those members -- as well as the Finance minister thinking it's a great deal as well. She says that in her '99-2000 budget she wasn't really banking on those revenues.

So I'm wondering. I'm wondering why the government waited so long to make this confession, this admission. You know, for three years the general public, local governments, gaming expansion opponents, communities, charities have gone through angst. They've been fighting this government. They've been fighting to be heard, and they wanted their say. We know that the government has done numerous papers, numerous reviews, reports, studies on gaming policy, and all of them say that there are significant concerns and issues with respect to the expansion of gaming.

[1720]

"At the time of the 1994 gaming policy review, for-profit casinos were ruled out because, according to the review's report, 'the benefits of major casinos are difficult to predict and do not justify risking the social costs, particularly in a strong economy.' Since that time, natural resource revenues have declined, and the province has experienced increasing deficits. Government is therefore examining alternatives for raising revenues."

But honestly, it makes me wonder whether this policy was set as a result of, you know, being considered in good faith and for the good of the province, or was the government just trying to get more money into their coffers -- over the objections, of course, of all the people that were objecting and wanting the government to stop pushing their massive expansion of gaming policies.

Now, the alternative is what the government chose. They chose to ignore the 1994 report. And I know there was a report done by Peter Clark; I'm sure that report had raised some significant issues about the social costs, the economic costs, the health costs, certainly costs around policing -- all those kinds of things related to gambling. The White Paper was done recently as well. And again, municipalities had concerns; charities had concerns; all kinds of groups had concerns about the government's wish to push through and force casinos and slot machines and the like onto the communities.

Now, the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to lose six court cases against municipalities and charities. You'd think the government would stop and think about their policy instead of pushing through, but they didn't. They chose to fight local governments and charities; they chose to fight with people and communities. I think this did a lot of hurt, a lot of damage. I can tell you, this member and members on this side of the House are absolutely delighted that the government's taken this sharp left turn and decided to review their massive expansion in gaming policy. Basically we're delighted with the government members that opposed the policy and were actually able to shed a little light onto the government and convince them that this policy was wrong, that it needed to be reviewed and that. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.

S. Hawkins: . . .the government should move towards listening to communities, to charities and to people. What this reversal of policy yesterday did. . . .

[ Page 13761 ]

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I do hate to interrupt you, but if there are conversations that need to be had, they should be done outside in the hallway so that the member for Okanagan West can make her comments.

S. Hawkins: What I was saying was that this reversal of policy, though, leaves gaming in this province in a state of disarray. Government members are sending out some very mixed messages. We and the public deserve to know, in light of the comments from cabinet ministers and in light of comments from the Deputy Premier yesterday and other government members: what is the government's gambling policy?

[1725]

As I said earlier, publicly, we have had a White Paper which was intended to generate discussion on issues around gaming. When the white paper was brought forward, I said that we wanted to go forward with as broad a consensus as possible to get agreement from the different areas, the different constituent groups, affected by gaming.

There has been a committee set up by the Premier, which I have been a part of, along with three of my caucus colleagues. We have been reviewing all of the different aspects around the White Paper and around gaming issues, and I will be making some official policy pronouncements very shortly. So as I said earlier, the universe will unfold as it should, and people should stay tuned. I think that the discussion that has been going on is very healthy.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me more about this caucus committee -- what they were set up to do and how long they've been functioning as the committee that's looking at the government's gaming policy?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The caucus committee has been functioning for a while. We have had productive discussions at those meetings, and we have discussed issues around gaming. The work and results of that committee. . . . As minister, I have taken that work very seriously. As I said, the universe will unfold as it should in the very near future.

S. Hawkins: I was hoping I'd get a little more detailed information from the minister. He says the caucus committee has been functioning for a while. Has the committee been functioning since the release of the White Paper? Has the committee been functioning since 1994, when the first review said that for-profit casinos were not a good idea because they didn't justify the social costs? Has the committee been functioning since the government lost their last lawsuit? How long has this committee been functioning?

Frankly, it would have been nice if the public had known that there was a committee that was functioning, because I think the public wanted a chance. . . . Certainly, I know the minister has made reference to 150 submissions and responses to the White Paper. It would have been nice if the public knew some government members were working on this as well. But if he can give me some more details about the caucus committee that's been functioning: for how long, if they had terms of reference, what their recommendations are and what the government is going to do with their recommendations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would not expect the opposition to tell me about the deliberations that take place in opposition caucuses, and I am not going to expand on the deliberations that take place in caucus committees that are set up in our caucus. Nor, in fact, do they come under the terms of this ministry or its estimates. All I have said is that we have had a White Paper, and we have had considerable discussion and public input around that White Paper. When, as minister, I committed to the commissioning of a White Paper, that was done. Since that time, we have been evaluating the responses to that, and I have been working with a small committee of some of my colleagues in doing that. As minister, I will be making the announcements very soon. You know, I am quite happy with the way things are unfolding. As I said, the universe will unfold as it should.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.

[1730]

Certainly the minister is aware that there are at least 13 to 15 select standing committees of the Legislature -- committees on health, on social services, on justice, on the economy. Any of those could easily have had this issue referred to them. Again, I note with interest that it was a caucus committee that, I understand, is helping the government to move away from their massive expansion of gaming policy. And I'm glad the minister is happy that the universe is unfolding this way. I'm glad he thinks that it's great that the Deputy Premier is pre-announcing his policy that he's going to move back on expansion of gaming, that the Attorney General has quietly been opposing it -- that he is in agreement with the Attorney General -- that the Finance minister is also. . . .

One by one, we're getting little driblets of this policy leaking out every day. You know, to be fair, the public has a right to know what this government's policy is. I mean, we had the White Paper released earlier this spring. It was extended; it is now June. There are agreements-in-principle with casinos signed; I think the public wants to know where the government is going to move with those. There are probably plans for slot machines in other places.

People have the right to know, when government makes decisions, what they're going to be. Is the minister telling me that there is no decision made, that the Deputy Premier is shooting from the hip and so are all the other cabinet ministers? Are you telling me -- through the Chair -- that there is no policy, there is no decision, that the government's still making up its mind? Is this sort of like a trial balloon being leaked out there to sort of get a flavour of what the public appetite is for this policy? Is that what the gaming minister is telling me? You know, that is an awful way to make public

[ Page 13762 ]

There's a lot of angst in communities around this issue, and there's a lot of angst in different community groups around this issue -- certainly with local governments, with the justice system, with police.

So I want to know: is the minister telling me that they don't really have a policy, that this is something he's got to think about for the next few days because the Deputy Premier and some of the other cabinet ministers have let it out of the bag that they're not happy with the way things are going? The Deputy Premier is saying: "It seems to me that it's far more trouble than it's worth." After six losing lawsuits, I would think so. I'm glad that they saw the light.

Give me a time frame, because the day before yesterday, as far as we knew, the government was still pushing ahead with their massive expansion of gaming policies -- that is, with their efforts to push ahead with that agenda. Yesterday, out of the blue, the Deputy Premier said: "You know, we ought to get the heck out of it. It's not worth the trouble."

How do you take such a turn? It was reported -- and the minister can tell me if it's true -- that he was shocked at that revelation, that he didn't know that the Deputy Premier. . . . I will quote from a story in the Vancouver Sun today. The front page story, Wednesday, June 16, says: "[The] gaming minister, who was closeted in a meeting room Tuesday afternoon, was clearly shocked by the comments from [the Deputy Premier, the Attorney General] and others." So is it fair to say that this took the gaming minister totally by surprise?

What's going to be announced now is policy that's going to be made on the fly, because some ministers sort of leaked a trial balloon yesterday. Now the gaming minister needs a few days to sit down and talk to the dissident members of his caucus and his cabinet to get some kind of policy framework announced. It seems to me that this wasn't planned -- or it was planned as a leak just before the NDP convention.

[1735]

The Chair: Order, order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What a load of rhetoric-filled crap -- to put it bluntly. Pardon the unparliamentary language.

The Chair: I'm sure the minister would love to withdraw that.

G. Plant: The word "rhetoric" is very unparliamentary.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's right.

You know, the member is quoting from a newspaper article, which I think demonstrates why the Vancouver Sun has a reputation as sometimes being a second-rate scandal sheet, because the member knows. . . . I love the term they use: "closeted in meetings," not "closeted in a meeting room." As the member knows. . . . The member is here with me in a chamber, a duly constituted chamber of this Legislature -- and that's what this place is. An estimates debate is taking place.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What's been really interesting about our estimates debate so far is, I think, the civility with which my critic and myself -- and other people, by and large, who have been participating in the debate -- have conducted themselves. We have refrained from. . . . We have tried to conduct themselves with the behaviour expected of this chamber, which is exactly what it is. This is a chamber, a duly constituted chamber. It's not sequestered. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: If the minister could just take his seat for a moment. I would ask the hon. members to come to order so that the minister can make his comments, and then other members who wish to question the minister may stand up and be recognized.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You're going to get one of those looks in a minute -- not from me, from the Chair.

We have been working, as I said, on a gaming policy for a considerable amount of time, to put gaming on a sound basis in this province. It has been going on now for well over a year, and has been taking place with commitments I made around actions that I said that the government had to take if we were to do that. That started with the White Paper, which was a commitment that I made to charities and to the public after assuming this ministry.

During that time the White Paper was developed with considerable consultation, and we received over 150 different submissions from around the province. Also, during that time, there has been considerable input received from various groups, once that White Paper was out, in terms of how they viewed gaming and what should take place. Within the public of British Columbia, there has been considerable debate over gaming in this province and in terms of the expansion. I guess how the member likes to characterize it is as a massive expansion in gaming, when in fact British Columbia has the lowest amount of gaming of any province in. . .

K. Krueger: Not compared to what it was when you started.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .in this country. I think the member needs to realize that we have the lowest amount of gaming in this province of any province in the country. Considering that this member is constantly saying how great Alberta is, that Alberta is a shining example for all British Columbians, that Alberta is the holy grail of provinces as far as that member is concerned -- a province which gets in more revenue from gaming than they do from oil, a province which has VLTs in bars right across the province. . . . The amount of gaming that takes place in British Columbia pales in comparison to what takes place in Alberta. The member should check his facts, because that is a fact.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 13763 ]

[1740]

We will be making an announcement on that very shortly. There has been a great deal of work put into the decisions that we will be making; there has been a great deal of thought that's gone into the decisions that we will be making. We will be going forward in a manner which, I said, is consistent with the White Paper when it was received. The changes we want to put in place have a broad consensus of support. That is our objective, and that is our goal.

I am very comfortable with the comments that have been made to date. I don't have any problem with the views that have been expressed by members of my caucus, views expressed by members of the public or views expressed by just about anyone, because that's what the White Paper was for -- to engender discussion -- and it did just that. You will see very shortly the results of that work. You know, whether it's tomorrow, whether it's Friday or whether it's sometime next week, the universe will unfold as it should.

S. Hawkins: I don't care what the other provinces are doing; I care what this province is doing. In this province, the gaming expansion can be characterized as massive, because it was a massive expansion from what we had before. Frankly, I don't think the government prepared very well for it, because we didn't have. . . .

The Minister for Children and Families is here, and she knows, because I brought it up in her estimates. We know that we didn't have programs. We didn't have the proper studies. We didn't have the proper counselling or treatment facilities for the problem that we were creating when we were expanding gambling or gaming from what we had before to what we have today or what the government had planned for tomorrow.

So the minister can say that we have the lowest of any province. But we've increased significantly from what we had before. I think the public was very concerned about that. Certainly local governments, which have to provide for services and provide for the kinds of things that result from problem gambling, were very concerned about that.

The minister talks about diversity of opinion. Yes, there is a huge diversity of opinion --the public against this government, gaming opponents against this government, local governments against this government. Basically, the whole diversity of opinion was people opposing gaming and the government saying: "No, we're still going to shove it down your throats." That is the kind of diversity of opinion we saw in this province.

Hon. L. Boone: That's why they flock into the casinos.

S. Hawkins: The Minister for Children and Families says: "That's why people flock into casinos." Well, you know what? I think that someone who is responsible for addiction programs, someone who is responsible for treatment, someone who is responsible for the negative results of gaming should be very concerned about those kinds of statistics -- people flocking into casinos. Frankly, I took cold comfort from the comments I got from the Minister for Children and Families when I raised the issues of gaming in her estimates, because I can tell you, the province isn't prepared for the kinds of results that expansion in gaming will have.

[1745]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a current policy in place. It is going to change as a result of a White Paper that formed the basis for discussion in the province of British Columbia. Those changes will be forthcoming very soon. As I keep saying, the universe will unfold as it should. We have a policy in place; that policy is subject to change. It is subject to change on the basis of discussions that we've had on the basis of a White Paper and, in part, the views expressed by British Columbians. That change will take place soon.

G. Plant: I've been following the debate with interest. It wasn't clear to me whether the government had a policy today which was about to change or whether we were in some kind of a mystical interregnum between policies -- the interregnum being created by the fact that the government has a White Paper, which it's seeking comment on. But the minister's last statement was pretty clear -- that there is policy, and there is a policy today. Everyone knows that the minister has a White Paper and has been taking comments, and he tells us that he's on the verge of announcing what, presumably, will be a new or revised policy.

What I think is important for British Columbians to know is whether the statements that were made yesterday by some senior ministers in the government, including the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General, are consistent with current policy. Or are they inconsistent with current policy? It seems self-evident to me that the statements made by the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General yesterday were statements that are at odds with current policy. The minister, I think, is saying that they are the kinds of remarks which he as minister is taking into account in deciding whether or not to revise government policy. That surely means that those statements represent a point of view which is inconsistent with current government policy. I think that it would advance our understanding of the issue and advance the debate if the minister were able to shed some light on that particular question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those comments are in respect to future policy which is anticipated to come about as a result of discussions that we are having around the White Paper, the

[ Page 13764 ]

The Chair: I recognize the hon. member on the estimates. We are on vote 23.

G. Plant: I'm grateful for the reminder, because, of course, what I am trying to find out is what the current policy of the government is. I'm trying to find out whether the statements made by other ministers yesterday represent statements that do in fact correctly express the current policy of the government. The progress that I'm trying to make is with respect to understanding the current policy of the government -- not the policy that is about to change -- and whether or not the statements made by senior cabinet ministers yesterday, including the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General, are statements which represent the current policy of the government.

[1750]

The Chair: I'll recognize the member, noting the hour.

G. Plant: Well, let me just say that I'd hate to be the poor person who drafted the phrase: "Stay tuned. The universe is unfolding as it should." It's become the minister's mantra.

Let me just return briefly, one more time. . . . I hear the minister, but I don't hear him answer the question except by implication. I think the minister is saying that the statements that were made by the other ministers yesterday -- by the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General -- do not represent government policy but in fact represent something other than government policy. If that's the minister's view, a simple yes would confirm it. Then I'm sure the necessary motion could be made.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those comments represent their individual views with respect to potential policy changes that will be taking place in the very near future. I am completely at ease and happy with the comments that they have made. We have had considerable discussion around this issue, both publicly and in our caucus committee. That's the answer you're going to get, no matter how many times you ask the question.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:52 p.m.

The committee met at 7:48 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

S. Hawkins: Before the break, the minister and I were engaged in a discussion of the stunning turnabout on the NDP's massive expansion of gambling. The minister was quite surprised to learn that. . . . The reports in the paper were that he was shocked by the Deputy Premier's comments and comments by other cabinet ministers. In the Vancouver Sun, one of our esteemed columnists here also writes, as a matter of fact, that the current minister for gambling policy was caught by surprise.

I'm wondering if this is how the government is planning to announce policy changes in gambling -- to just let cabinet ministers and members of caucus out in the hallways to put up trial balloons. It was quite surprising, to say the least, that the minister who started down the road of expansion in gambling all of a sudden announces that there's going to be a change in policy -- and not the minister who's actually responsible. It is reported that the gaming minister was caught by surprise that his cabinet colleagues and others were making these public statements. I'm wondering if the minister was aware that his cabinet colleagues were going to be vocal with their comments.

The Chair: Hon. member, we are on vote 23 and I will ask you to keep your comments relevant to vote 23 -- that's on the administration of the minister's office. I will ask you to continue with your statement, your discussion, but to keep it relevant to vote 23.

S. Hawkins: Well, we're talking about gambling. We're in the gambling part of the estimates, Chair. So I'm asking the minister about the government's policy on gaming. Before yesterday, it was quite clear that the policy was for an expansion in gaming. That is the road that was being taken.

[1950]

S. Hawkins: A massive expansion with respect to gambling. Even with the White Paper hanging out there, the policy of the day was an expansion in gambling. Yesterday we heard that there's going to be a turnabout or some other, something else. . . .

A Voice: Something else white is hanging out there.

S. Hawkins: Something else is hanging out there. I'm just wondering how this minister puts that together and what the policy of the government is today? What is the policy of the government today? You've left British Columbians pretty confused. I want the minister to comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, I find it really bizarre that the member stands there and quotes an article from a second-rate journal, the Vancouver Sun, and says: "Oh, the

[ Page 13765 ]

The Chair: Hon. minister, I'll remind you about parliamentary language.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, exactly. We're one for one.

I mean, I just find that really bizarre.

Look, I said it earlier, and I'm going to say it again. We have been working on gaming policy in response to the White Paper for quite some time now. The Deputy Premier made some comments yesterday, and I don't have a problem with the comments that he's made. The fact of the matter is that we are making an announcement soon -- very soon. I think that the changes that I will be announcing will be in a direction that the vast majority of the public of British Columbia wishes to go. The Deputy Premier, while he expressed comments, did not in fact make any changes to gaming policy. He expressed his views on which direction he thought we should be going, and I don't have a problem with that. But the exact nature of the changes that we will be making will be unveiled very soon. As I said and will continue to say, the universe will unfold as it should.

K. Krueger: The problem, of course, is that the universe was far better in British Columbia before this government launched its unwise, ill-considered, unprepared, unresearched, stupid, ridiculous, massive expansion of gambling during this government's watch -- and specifically in 1996 and '97.

This minister has had it fall to him, of course, to try and do damage control for the ridiculous decisions that his predecessors have made, and we all have a certain amount of empathy for the situation he finds himself in. The very minister, the Deputy Premier, who launched this massive expansion of gambling, and it has been massive. . . . We had $25-maximum bets at the time that the Deputy Premier decided to launch this huge expansion of gaming.

He widely increased the number of hours; he increased the number of venues. In communities such as mine, Kamloops, we saw casinos move from little locations to large locations, take over prime sites in communities, corrupt and degrade the downtown cores. In Kamloops we have a really bad prostitution problem prevalent near the casino.

You don't see happy-looking people coming out of that stinking casino; you see miserable-looking people coming out. You hear of young people who've gone in and spent their tuition money for the year. This NDP government has brought damage to the universe of British Columbia, and it irks me every time the minister opposite quotes that ridiculous line about the universe unfolding as it should. B.C.'s environment has unfolded as it shouldn't have under this government's watch.

[1955]

Now it's fallen to this poor minister to try and stickhandle his way along through the government's so-called White Paper process and to deal with the lawsuits -- loss after loss after humiliating loss in the courts by this government, because they should never have done what they did. They should have always listened to municipalities. In fact, there were assurances that these venues wouldn't go into municipalities that didn't want them. Not unlike the abandonment of the photo radar so-called fairness program, that seemed to go by the board.

Then there was this whole issue of whether or not there would be cash machines in casinos. Well, maybe there aren't, but they're very close to the casinos, in the lobbies of the hotels that house them. There was the issue of whether or not alcohol would be allowed in casinos, and the government's been trying to allow that through the destination resort application process.

All of this has been a massive push against the tide of public opinion, of which this government was well aware before it ever launched its massive expansion of gambling. Public opinion is the same now, if not stronger -- perhaps stronger -- than it was when this massive expansion of gambling was launched, but it was strongly against it at that time, and the government knew it full well.

The government was just greedy -- NDP greed, determined to suck the money out of the people's pockets. If that money had stayed in communities, it would have gone around and around and around -- the money that people would have spent on groceries, the money people would have spent on going to the theatre, on things for their children, clothing for their children. That money has gone into slot machines, and those coins will come tumbling down to the coffers of this government, where they've been spent, again, on friends and insiders, like everything is spent in this province.

We spoke to this government about this as they launched this massive expansion of gambling. We asked every ministry whose responsibilities touched on the issue: what studies did you do in advance? What have you done to try and anticipate the cost and the effect on British Columbians of a huge expansion of gambling like this? The answer time after time was that they hadn't done anything. The Attorney General hadn't done anything and didn't expect any consequences with regard to crime and justice in British Columbia. The Minister of Health hadn't done anything, and the Minister of Health at the time, who's the Finance minister now, finally agreed to devote a couple million dollars of the huge proceeds of this money grab from the citizens of British Columbia to some addiction programs. That was the one minor concession we got, but they apparently hadn't thought of that before the opposition pressed them. The Ministry for Children and Families. . . . The minister was sitting here heckling before the dinner break -- of all the ridiculous behaviour for a Minister for Children and Families, who is charged with responsibility for addictions treatment.

The Minister of Women's Equality is pathetically unaware of the huge and damaging effects that this gambling

[ Page 13766 ]

This has been an awful social experiment and blunder by a greedy government. Here's this poor minister. The best he can offer is that the universe is going to unfold as it should. The universe should have been allowed to be the same as it should be. We know we can't really blame him, although I remember that minister voting in solidarity with the government, as he's always done, no matter how stupid their actions are. We proposed an amendment to the budget that would have allowed this government to block the gambling expansion, and this minister and this government voted solidly against our amendment and insisted on allowing. . . . The Deputy Premier is now heralding the way for the Attorney General to make his leadership bid by reversing the very policy that he launched-- against all sense, all intelligence and the advice of everybody in this province who knew anything about the predictable effects of gambling expansion. The people who knew the very least were the people who seized responsibility and ordered the change.

I'd like to ask this minister: what are the most recent studies commissioned by this government -- any that are presently underway, that have been done since he's been gaming minister or that he's aware of -- with regard to the effect on British Columbians, our society, our criminal justice system, our families? What does the minister know about the increase in gambling addiction since the NDP launched this massive expansion of gambling?

[2000]

K. Krueger: Is the minister saying, then, that this government hasn't bothered to do any studies since it launched this massive expansion of gambling? Did the government not want to have a report card on the effects in British Columbia -- the effects that were perfectly predictable? Is 1997 the most recent study that this government has done? This is 1999.

This expansion has been proceeding rapidly -- although not as rapidly as the government sought, in that it was continually blocked by lawsuits. It has had the humiliation of being told by the Supreme Court of British Columbia that it was operating in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. Nobody resigned; nobody went to jail; nobody even changed their ways until now. Apparently a change is going to be announced, probably to try and reconsolidate NDP support at the convention. Has this government actually not done any studies along the way, in spite of all the warnings raised by the opposition that these detrimental effects would occur across the spectrum in British Columbia? Have there not been any studies at all?

We know. The library is full of studies, and there are studies all around North America where other jurisdictions barged into gambling expansion ahead of British Columbia and have reaped the whirlwind as a result of seeing the consequences. We raised these studies in the House. The Minister of Women's Equality stumbled around in embarrassment during her estimates two sessions ago, utterly humiliated because she wasn't aware of studies that were in this Legislative Library concerning the effects on women of gambling addictions in societies where gambling expansion had been allowed.

We told this government that in Manitoba more money was being spent on VLTs than was being spent on groceries. We raised study after study, fact after fact, and brought them to this government's attention, since once again it hadn't done its own homework. And this government has not bothered to monitor the effects on British Columbians as the gambling expansion proceeded?

We told this government, and we documented it, that the more venues there are available for gambling, the faster addiction grows. There's a correlation between the two, and the rates of addiction will continue to grow as expansion proceeds. This government should have been watching that closely. Is the minister actually saying that no studies have been done by this government since 1997 on the social effects of gambling expansion, and none are presently underway?

[2005]

Where was his virtue? Where was his self-righteousness during that campaign? Where was your self-righteousness when you were receiving money from the gaming industry in those days, hon. member? Where were your fabulous vocal cords when Jackee Schaefer was saying: "We like the Liberal Party because we think their policies are more in line with ours." Where were your fabulous vocal cords then, hon. member? Where were your principles? Where was your virtue, hon. member?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. Now that it's my turn to respond, all of a sudden the rules and regulations people come up.

You know, it really is a little galling. The fact of the matter is that in Kamloops, the council supports the casino being there. They support it, and they have in communities right around the province. We've said that there won't be casinos going into communities. . . .

K. Krueger: They didn't want to be sued by you thugs.

[ Page 13767 ]

A Voice: What comment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The term "thug."

The Chair: Hon. member. . . . Minister, take your seat, please. The hon. member will withdraw his comment.

K. Krueger: There's no comment on the record.

The Chair: The hon. member will withdraw his comment.

K. Krueger: What comment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: "Thug" -- you referred to me as a thug.

K. Krueger: Anyway, I do withdraw. Let him carry on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are casinos in this province, in communities around the province, and they are there because the local communities agreed that they should be there.

We have made changes in gaming policy, and there are going to be more changes coming. The fact of the matter is that there are studies that have been done in 1997. The White Paper, for example, makes recommendations that we should continue ongoing studies. We work with other provinces across this country to look at gaming on a provincial and national basis to study impacts. We share information with each other. Studies done in different parts of the country are valuable resources for us here in British Columbia. We get them, and we take the information contained in them seriously. Likewise, there's a big major study coming out of the United States -- a national impact study -- on issues around gaming.

In the province, we monitor activities around gaming facilities, and we work with communities around them. We have supplied money to communities, and we've recognized some of the issues around them. There's a host of concerns by government around the issue of casinos. Studies have been done, and more studies will be done. But for the member to stand there and suddenly say, "Oh my God" -- this, this and this. . . . You know, that's fine. But also look at your own background on this issue.

A Voice: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through the Chair -- look at your own party's background as well.

[2010]

A Voice: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Through the Chair -- look at your own record in the by-elections, where the funding for some of your campaign workers came through the Great Canadian Casino. It wasn't reported -- not that it had to be -- and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's where the funding came from.

So if we want to engage in a discussion around gaming policy, we can do that. If we want to stick to the estimates around gaming policy and changes in gaming policy, we can do that. We can have a civil debate, which your colleague and my critic have been having and can continue to have. Or we can engage in a long-drawn-out, rhetoric-filled debate which gets nobody anywhere. I'm quite happy to do either one. The request from my critic, to date, has been: if we can stay focused, that's just going to speed things along. If we don't want to do that, that's fine by me, because I can get into long-drawn-out, rhetoric-filled diatribes as well. So I'll take my cue from the colleagues opposite.

The Chair: Hon. member, on vote 23.

K. Krueger: The minister has raised the issue of whether or not the Kamloops city council was in favour of the casino. The mayor and council told me at the time of the casino moving that they considered themselves creatures of the provincial government and unable to oppose the will of the provincial government. Of course, larger municipalities went to court and found out that indeed they could stand up to the kind of bullying approach the NDP exercised with its massive expansion of gambling.

The issues that the minister raises with regard to me personally. . . . He doesn't know what he's talking about. They had nothing to do with gambling expansion; they had to do with one site in British Columbia having the expertise to bid on a contract to print B.C. Lottery Corporation tickets -- its competition being in Asia, where child labour might well be involved, and in Georgia, where people work for far less money. The closest plant in Canada that could compete is in the city of Montreal. So the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. It had nothing to do with gambling expansion.

But the minister stood up and talked about the weight -- the weight that he felt with regard to my opening remarks in this series of questions. In fact, he should feel a considerable weight, because it has been dumped on his shoulders by an irresponsible government that launched this massive gambling expansion, oblivious to and uncaring about the consequences that would surely flow to British Columbians -- and they have flowed.

The minister did speak of some studies, as if there were studies underway. That's the answer I asked for, which he's chosen not to give: are there specific studies underway, and do they show increases in gambling addiction rates, gambling-related crime and the measurable social consequences of the massive gambling expansion which the NDP has brought about in this province? Do those studies show that, and if so, what are the numbers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll just tell the member that we have studies that were done in '93 and '97, and that '97 was only two years ago. The fact of the matter is that there's been gaming taking place in this province for a considerable amount of time. That was the last study that was done; there will be more studies done. We also take into account studies being done in other jurisdictions and look at the impacts of casinos that have been constructed in other parts of Canada.

[ Page 13768 ]

People go to a casino, and they gamble. It doesn't matter whether the bet limit is $25 or $100; they will gamble. So if you're looking to try and identify problems, you will identify the problems in a study in '97 or '93 -- or if we do another study in '99 or 2001, if that's what the member is concerned about. The fact of the matter is that there have been studies done, for example on crime, in other parts of Canada. And you know what? There is no increase.

[2015]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says that it's baloney, but I guess that is your view of the world. Only your opinion is right, and everybody else is wrong. It's very easy to take that view. Well, I'll give him the letters from the police chiefs of those communities that bear out those studies and those statistics. Maybe that will satisfy the hon. member. What I'm quite willing to do is share with him the studies that we have and the studies that we have from other jurisdictions, for example as they relate to crime, including the responses from the chiefs of police in those communities.

S. Hawkins: We would like those studies, so we will hold the minister to his commitment.

We certainly got copies of a lot of the submissions that went to the White Paper. The minister may recall that colleagues of mine, including myself, have been through a lot of the submissions of the gaming experts. A lot of the submissions did make reference to the fact that proper research and study was not done before this government embarked on their massive expansion of gambling. I think the member from Kamloops is justified in asking those kinds of questions, because the minister shares with us now that the last study was done in 1997. That was about the time that the province was embarking on their expansion of gambling. So I think the member has a right to be concerned that data hasn't been collected since. If there are plans to do studies to see what the effect has been on the province and its citizens in the last couple of years, that's great.

I feel for this minister, because I know that a lot of times he tries to do the right thing. He's been handed a very, very tough assignment. The gaming policy in this province, if there is a policy, is a mess. I know that the minister refers to himself as the clean-up guy or the janitor. This has got to be the biggest mess. . . . I mean, he's going to need a power vacuum cleaner or. . .

A Voice: A Zamboni.

S. Hawkins: . . .a Zamboni or something to clean this one up. I know the comments he makes. . . . Again, I'm referring to that esteemed columnist writing. . . . I know the comments he has been making, because I've heard him say it himself in the hallway. He's not upset with the comments that the Deputy Premier or the Attorney General or some of the other members -- like the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- were making, saying that they felt it was time to turn the gaming policy around.

I guess what I'm concerned about is that the government was moving in one direction, but yesterday it halted and said: "Members, we're saying, 'Whoa, time to turn around or go in another direction.' " What concerns me -- and the minister tells me that there are going to be some announcements -- is that instead of a well-prepared, thoroughly researched, widely consulted and accepted gaming policy, what we're getting is dribbles of stuff -- bits and pieces that are being leaked. My understanding, again from the reports that came overnight from comments that were made yesterday, is that the cabinet will let stand the seven new casinos that have received approval in principle. This is on the heels of the comments that were being made yesterday by the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General, so I don't know if this has actually been discussed or debated. I don't know if those seven were going to be scrapped or if they're going to go ahead. There are rumours that one or two may fall through.

The second thing that's being reported -- and I don't know, again, where it's coming from -- is that cabinet will establish a new regulatory authority that's going to oversee, at some kind of arm's length, gambling in B.C. So again, the public doesn't get. . . . The public apparently got involved in consultation through the White Paper. The public begged for an extension for submissions to the White Paper, so the government gave a month or whatever.

[2220]

Hon. M. Farnworth: A lot of the questions and the points that the member raises, particularly around what form changes will take, I think are points of discussion that have been out there for a considerable amount of time. What I have said, and will repeat again, is that we will be announcing those changes and they are going to happen very soon, very shortly, and they will be placed in the context of the overall position that gaming will take in the province of British Columbia.

We have had a White Paper and there has been considerable discussion around that. It sought the views of British Columbians; it received the views of British Columbians. There was a great deal of input, and I was very pleased with that. It was intended to generate discussion and it did. Now following on that, there has been a lot of work done in looking at those submissions and in analyzing them, and decisions are now ready to be made about what policy changes are going to take place. I think that the direction we will be going in and the changes we will be making are the right ones. In fact, they

[ Page 13769 ]

In terms of my colleagues making comments, hey, that's, you know. . . . There's a lot of discussion, and a lot of emotion and a lot of feeling around this issue. I don't have a problem with the fact that some people have chosen to speculate about what may be the change in policy of the government or that we should change the policy. I have not heard, for example, members saying exactly what changes will take place, other than that there should be a general change in direction. What I am saying is that things aren't coming out, in that sense, in dribs and drabs. The message I have heard from my colleagues over the last 24 hours has been very consistent. They want to see a change, and they think that British Columbians want to see a change in gaming policy. That's what we have been working towards; that's what the committee has been working on, and that's what I have been working on. There's probably some over enthusiasm, you might say, but the fact of the matter is that there are changes coming, they will be announced very shortly and they will be placed in their proper context as they should be.

S. Hawkins: If this government was working towards a drastic change in direction, then why is it announced in the hallway by the Deputy Premier? Why isn't it announced by the gaming minister, when he's responsible for the direction that gaming is supposed to be moving in? It doesn't do anything to stabilize the state of gambling out there. This minister is responsible for gambling. We've got other cabinet colleagues talking in hallways about the changes for gaming that are coming down. I think that's wrong. This Legislature is the place where the government is held accountable for their policies and the directions that their policies are taking. I think it's repugnant that this minister is not able to share the direction that the government is going in insofar as gaming policy. We were hearing yesterday that it's going to take a sharp turn. What I'm hearing today is, well, maybe it's not. Yesterday we heard that some of the ministers want it changed. Today we're hearing, well, it might change. Who knows what's going to happen? What I'm trying to understand from the minister is: as of today, as of right now, what is the government's gambling policy?

[2025]

S. Hawkins: Well, you know what? People have the right to know what direction the government is taking. People shouldn't have to find out by comments being made in a hallway. That's how people are finding out how the government is announcing policy. I think that's wrong. Frankly, the people in this province know that we need a well-thought-out, well-researched, widely-consulted-on, widely accepted gaming policy. Instead of hearing in the hallway that there are going to be changes and trial balloons being floated in the hallway, people expect the gambling minister to make those announcements. We're hearing one thing yesterday, and we're hearing nothing today, and we're being told that things are going to be announced very shortly. This government has a habit of announcing bad news on Fridays, so I hope it's not going to be Friday. Maybe it'll be Saturday or Sunday, when the minister's at the convention. And frankly, I don't think that's fair. I think the public has a right to know.

The public got involved somewhat in a discussion about gambling in the White Paper. It wasn't as wide a consultation as this issue probably deserved. There were no public hearings. Some municipalities chose to have public hearings. I attended some of them around the province. Instead, it was written submissions, then a White Paper and then a response to the White Paper. Now, maybe members of cabinet had a chance to read some of those submissions. I think most of those submissions did raise a lot of concerns around the direction that the government was going. If the government was going to change direction, surely they would have announced it to the public through the minister responsible. Surely the government would have done that.

I guess that's disturbing to me, because I think that what's happening here is that for political reasons. . . . There is a convention coming up, the minister's party's convention. The minister and the government know that this is an issue that's very dangerous to members of his party. They don't like it. It's a political minefield.

[2030]

Now I think what I'm seeing is the minister, because of the turmoil in the caucus and the split in caucus on this issue. . . . I think they need time to sort out how they're going to handle this, and I don't think. . . . It doesn't give me a lot of confidence that, out of what was happening yesterday, today and through the weekend -- and the minister says that very soon we're going to get a policy on this. . . . I do not feel comfortable that we are going to get that kind of well-prepared, thoroughly researched, widely-consulted-on, widely accepted policy. I'm really afraid of that, and it's only because of the way it was announced yesterday.

Again, the minister says that it's not coming out in bits and pieces. Well, it is coming out in bits and pieces. There are leaks to media about what's going to happen. If the minister is telling me that there's not going to be cabinet establishing an authority that's going to look at gaming, oversee gaming at arm's length. . . . He can tell me that there's not going to be an authority, and that's an incorrect leak. But if there is going to be one, for goodness' sake, I wish that we could discuss it here.

[ Page 13770 ]

I don't think it's fair to say that you're going to make an announcement very soon. I hope the minister will share more than what he's been doing. Frankly, I'm not very happy with the fact that he keeps saying: "The universe will unfold as it should." The universe has not unfolded very well for B.C. in the last couple of years -- the last two or three or four or five years; maybe even the last eight years, for goodness' sake.

This is not the way to be making policy. If you've got members shooting from the hip and making policy on the fly -- and the next three or four days are going to decide how you're going to justify that or put meat around the bones -- that is not a good way of making policy.

If the minister can share any part. . .or confirm what British Columbians are reading in their papers this morning -- that seven of the new casinos that have received approval may go forward and that one or two may fall. . . . I don't know where we're getting that from. Where's that coming from? Certainly we have members and ministers from the minister's side making comments. Where are they getting that from? And is there going to be a new authority? Can the minister confirm that? People expect us to ask the questions and the government to answer them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've already answered this question numerous times late this afternoon and early this evening, and I'll answer it again. There will be an announcement very soon regarding the changes that are going to take place in gaming, and I will give the member a commitment that it will not be on Sunday or Saturday or Friday of this week at the convention. I will not be making an announcement at the convention.

A Voice: But will the Deputy Premier or the Attorney General or. . . ?

The Chair: Order, member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the specific nature of changes to the gaming policy, I will be making those announcements. It will be in the context of putting in place a gaming policy that has broad support from the people of British Columbia. We have engaged in discussion around a White Paper, for example, and that follows through on a commitment that I made after becoming minister. I said that we had to do this, and we have done it. It has engendered considerable discussion, and as I keep saying, I think that is a good thing. Certain of my colleagues have gone out and said that we should change direction, and that's fine. But I have yet to see a newscast or hear a radio interview where colleagues of mine have said exactly what the changes are or will be. They have not said that.

[2035]

S. Hawkins: I hope the minister is right this time; I hope the government is right this time. Three years ago we embarked down a road that the public wasn't very happy with, and the public didn't have a lot of consultation with the government on it. Frankly, I always say that I judge future behaviour from past performance, so I'm a little nervous about that. We await the announcement, and I hope I don't read it in the paper on Friday or Saturday or Sunday or Monday -- from the weekend.

I hope it's well-thought-out, I hope it's well prepared, and I hope it's well accepted. British Columbians deserve that. The state of the gambling issue has just been frightening for the past few years in this province. Frankly, local governments have been afraid, because they don't think the government put enough thought into the social or economic or policing issues, all those kinds of things.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a lot of background in this area, and he did a lot of consulting with experts and people who have done studies. Frankly, there was a concern that not enough research had been done in this province to see if we had the resources and policies to deal with the social, economic, policing -- whatever -- costs that the major expansion in gambling was going to cost the province.

If I can deal with the White Paper just for a minute. I know there was quite a bit of work and effort put into that paper by Mr. Rhodes. Can the minister tell me what the cost of the White Paper was?

Hon. M. Farnworth: About $670,000.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister break down those numbers for me?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Around $418,000 for legal consulting, approximately $110,000 for one. . .$108,000 for another consulting, $9,000 for data processing and $25,000 for the Queen's Printer.

R. Thorpe: Were those costs incurred in the last fiscal year? Or are those the costs that are planned for this fiscal year? Or is that the total cost of how much is booked in each of the two years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is the total cost of the White Paper.

[2040]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was $110,000.

S. Hawkins: Of the legal consulting, can the minister break that down into categories or groups of where. . . ? You

[ Page 13771 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can't break down the $418,000 individually. I mean, it may over time. . . . It's not something we have here. Gaming is an extremely complicated issue, with many, many facets.

A Voice: No kidding.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the member says, no kidding. It's been a very interesting learning experience, you know. . .

A Voice: Especially the last couple of days.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .over the last year. But the work that's been done around this White Paper has resulted in the most comprehensive legal examination of gaming in this country.

S. Hawkins: Can you get it for me?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. This is the most comprehensive legal document on gaming in Canada today.

A Voice: The penultimate legal document.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Penultimate, I think, is an excellent term.

S. Hawkins: Will the minister commit to getting me a summary of what legal issues were dealt with in the White Paper?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. The issues are all in here, so that's probably where we're going to start.

S. Hawkins: Sorry, I wasn't very clear about that. I'm interested in the breakdown of who worked on the White Paper with regard to the $418,000 in legal consulting, and what portions they worked on. If you could just break that down, that would. . . . The minister is nodding his head, so I will take that as a commitment.

Was there a contract with Mr. Rhodes to produce this? Did he come in within budget for that contract?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was the original contract that was signed with Mr. Rhodes for previous work that he was doing and was extended on the same basis in terms of the same time and fees.

[2045]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

S. Hawkins: With respect to the legal fees again, can the minister confirm that the law firm Ladner Downs was involved in consulting with the White Paper?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Will the minister get me numbers for how much Ladner Downs received and for what work they did?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They received $418,000.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. They did all of the work. I wasn't aware of that. Is that because the government only contracted with one firm to do the legal work for gaming? Is that the firm that does government's legal work for gaming?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The government has in-house counsel that deals with legal issues within the ministry or within government. This was a specific exercise with which we were engaged in, and that's why we engaged an outside firm.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister then tell me, if he can, the lawyers that worked on it from Ladner Downs and their qualifications with respect to gaming expertise?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will undertake to do that.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister just quickly outline for me the time lines within which the White Paper ran its course, just to refresh my memory?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would have been last spring. Shortly after I became minister was when I said that we needed to undertake this, and it was till this past February. It's almost a year.

S. Hawkins: I'm probably going to start getting into detailed questions, and I don't know if this is the time to take a proper break and resume at the next sitting.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, we probably should.

S. Hawkins: With everybody's agreement, I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada