2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 6
[ Page 16297 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to introduce a gentleman in the gallery today who I think is probably well known by many in the House. He is Greg Jadrzyk, who is the president of the Northern Forest Products Association. Greg, of course, is the very strong and able advocate for the north and indeed for the forest industry in British Columbia. I think it's also notable, with Greg's presence here today, that this year the Northern Forest Products Association is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. I'll ask the House to join me in congratulating the NFPA on their very important anniversary and also to welcome Greg to our chamber.
T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is my 13-year-old nephew Justin Sanderson. Justin is here in Canada for three weeks from Hobart, Tasmania. He has come to visit the House today, although this morning he and I and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville went out for a game of golf. Being the competitive sort of person as my nephew is, he managed to win quite a number of holes. However, I have challenged him for a rematch in Vancouver in a week's time. I hope all members will make him welcome.
Hon. S. Hammell: Members, I'd like to take this moment to introduce to you some people who are visiting the House today. Dr. Tara Singh Sandhu is visiting from India. He is a distinguished writer, a freelance journalist, a political activist and a commentator on Punjabi politics. Amandeep Singh Punian, a guest, is here from Edmonton. Jagir Singh and Harpal Kaur Grewal are friends of mine from Surrey. Their relatives are here from India, and they are Dr. Ajaib Singh and Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur Bhatti. They are here to see us perform today in the House, so would everyone please make them welcome.
[1410]
L. Stephens: In the precincts today are 26 grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley. They're accompanied by a number of parents and their teacher, Mr. Knelsen. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Sawicki: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Darcy McNeill, who is visiting us from Toronto. Mr. McNeill is the executive director of the Aluminum Marketing Council, and he's here in support of Environment Week. I hope the hon. members noticed and took part in the event that Mr. McNeill and the Aluminum Marketing Council hosted this morning on the legislative grounds, providing a fun and educational forum to learn about the environmental benefits of aluminum. I would ask all members of the House to make him welcome.
V. Roddick: I would like to share with the House my visit today with Mrs. Macham's grade 4 class from Cliff Drive Elementary School in Delta South. I think it is wonderful that children can come here and learn about this magnificent building -- the history and what we do here. I ask that the House would indulge me in recognizing the visit of this group and how good it is to have parents, teachers and their children investigate what actually goes on around here.
COST OF CONSUMER CREDIT
DISCLOSURE ACT
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act. The bill introduces rules for the disclosure of cost-of-credit information by credit guarantors to consumers. These rules are harmonized with provisions that are being introduced by each senior level of government -- federal, provincial and territorial -- across Canada. We're the third province to introduce these harmonized disclosure rules. The federal government and four additional provinces will introduce similar provisions by year's end, and the remaining jurisdictions will follow next year.
The bill will give British Columbia consumers clear and comparable cost-of-credit information, allowing more informed credit decisions. Comparable provisions by our partner jurisdictions will extend this right, regardless of federal or provincial jurisdiction or the geographical location of the credit grantor.
This harmonization not only benefits consumers; it also benefits businesses. Credit grantors operating across Canada will benefit from consistency in regulation, and those operating solely in B.C. will benefit from a level playing field as competition becomes subject to equivalent rules regardless of jurisdiction.
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 22 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.
BCTV STORY ON
DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE
L. Reid: Last December this government filed a complaint with the CRTC alleging that BCTV had violated the rights of the Draayers children. This complaint was passed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, and they say that the government was wrong -- that the reporting of the BCTV interview was unimpeachable.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council noted that the report accurately told the story of "the children and their clear desire to remain with their parents." Will the Premier tell
[ Page 16298 ]
us how he can justify launching a vendetta against BCTV for the sole purpose of attempting to stop a story that needed to be told?
[1415]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I learned about this particular action, as the opposition may have, from the newspapers. But I want to say this: I think it's important that the opposition recognizes and remembers -- as should the media and as should the government -- that in the Draayers case and in any case dealing with the children under the protection legislation, we are dealing with young people whose rights of privacy are constantly being violated on television screens, on the front page of newspapers and in this House.
So, hon. Speaker, I urge the opposition to ensure that all of us -- and I urge our side as well -- conduct ourselves in a way that enhances the confidentiality rights of the young people who can't protect themselves.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.
L. Reid: If this Premier learned about this issue from a newspaper, he simply wasn't doing his job, because in fact he authorized that approach -- no question. If BCTV hadn't done this story, these little girls would have been lost in the system.
Frankly, this government didn't like the BCTV response to this story. But instead of focusing on the girls, the Attorney General, now Premier, filed another complaint against BCTV. Will the Premier tell us why he approved of the complaint against BCTV, when it was nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the media?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just asking the minister responsible whether or not Mr. Dawson initiated this complaint. Ross Dawson is the superintendent with respect to these matters. He acts independently of ministers or Premiers, and it is his obligation -- independently of the opposition, if I might say, and of the government -- to protect the best interests of the children.
If he launched this complaint
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a further supplemental question.
L. Reid: In fact, this complaint was filed through the provincial government's Ministry of Attorney General. So again, he probably wasn't doing his job if he learned about it through the newspaper.
Frankly, this government still owes an apology to the Draayers's family doctor, who simply tried to stand up for these little girls. Instead of listening to the doctor, which they were required to do under their own practice guidelines, the government filed a complaint against him. Will the Premier apologize today to Dr. Sank, and will the Premier tell us that indeed that complaint has been withdrawn?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Well, Mr. Speaker, in this situation the director, again in his capacity -- indeed with his authority protect the privacy of those children -- was very concerned about the issue that the doctor revealed information about that family. That was the nature of the complaint as he saw it. That is his job; that is his duty. Everyone in this House should be supporting him in doing that right, to protect those children -- all our children.
G. Plant: I've got the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council report into this matter in front of me. In reading it, I was interested to hear what the Premier said when he stood up and said, "I just learned about this particular action by Mr. Dawson today," because that clearly means that on some day in February, he wasn't doing his job.
[1420]
The Broadcast Standards Council says that since the complainant, probably Mr. Dawson, was dissatisfied with the response of BCTV's news director, he filed a ruling request through the provincial government's Ministry of Attorney General on February 7. So what is the Premier doing here? It was his decision to allow this complaint to proceed and his decision to lend the weight of his ministry to a vendetta against BCTV.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am constantly amazed at the opposition's disregard of the due process in any issue that comes before this House. There are thousands of actions taken by particular ministries every day. All of those actions don't come to the minister's attention. If Ross Dawson, the superintendent whose duty it is to protect the interests of the children, felt that that merited an appeal, and he made a submission to the ministry, and the ministry approved it, so be it. Good for Ross Dawson for pursuing his
NOW COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTS
G. Farrell-Collins: It's a little hard to take the sanctimonious comments of the Premier. When he was Attorney General, with the Carrier Lumber dispute and the words that came from the courts against this government for their actions in Carrier Lumber
I have a question. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and told us that the reason the contract went to Now Communications, the friends of the Premier, was that it was going to save us money. Mr. Speaker, we have an e-mail from a Treasury Board analyst in the Minister of Finance's own ministry that questions the hourly rates that Now Communications has been charging over the years, repeatedly. It says: "I am also still concerned with some of the hourly rates they charge" -- X dollars per hour for a junior copywriter; X dollars per hour for a secretary. Those numbers are whited out. "Some seem pretty outrageous, and I'm unclear why some of the basic stuff can't be done in-house."
Will the minister tell us why he's telling us that Now Communications has been saving us money, when his own Treasury Board officials have been telling us just the opposite?
Interjections.
[ Page 16299 ]
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'm pleased that the member recognizes that Treasury Board staff do their duty and question lots of expenditures right across government. I would point out to the member that the contracts that Now Communications has as an agent of record for the Ministries of Health and Education were won through a fair tendered process. They met the test. And contrary to what the member may think, the fact that an ad agency may have done work for a political candidate does not disqualify them from bidding for government business.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I sometimes think that the Minister of Finance knows what my next question is before I even ask it. He talks about how wonderful it is that Now Communications contracts have been tendered. But another one of his Treasury Board officials -- actually, the same Treasury Board official -- expresses serious concern about the Ministry of Health's habit of extending Now's contract without going to tender. In fact, the analyst writes: "I will be recommending that this submission be
[1425]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I stand by my comments. Now Communications won its contract as agents of record for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education in an open tendered process. This is the way that government seeks to get business; this is the way it tenders contracts; this is the way it evaluates bids; this is the way it awards them. And guess what. We allow all British Columbia firms to bid on those contracts and compete fairly for government business.
M. de Jong: The more you review these documents, the more you see the pattern that has developed over the years of how the NDP government goes out of its way to accommodate the Premier's friends at Now Communications. I've actually got an e-mail memo of February '99. It's a rather astounding document, because in it, Ministry of Health officials chronicle how upset Now Communications are. You see, a contract had come up for renewal, and you know what? They didn't want to have to bother with a re-tender, because that takes a lot of work, according to Now Communications. Imagine the indignity, Mr. Speaker, of Now Communications having to submit a formal re-tender. Imagine them having to do that. And in fact, they didn't have to do that.
Will the Finance minister confirm that for some time now his government has been re-extending contracts with Now Communications without the need to re-tender -- because, after all, they're just friends of the Premier and the NDP?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess we're going to do the estimates of Health and Education yet again. I don't know why they didn't raise this at the time. Those are the ministries responsible for tendering those contracts, getting good value for the tax dollar, and I submit to the chamber that they have. These are good contracts. This firm has delivered for the province, as have other firms that we have contracts with.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: There's quite a paper trail, actually, with respect to this matter. There's an internal memo from the Ministry of Health from April of last year. This one talks about the numerous amendments for contracts requiring funding after the fact -- Now Communications, of course. It's rather astounding. The e-mail shows that there was insufficient information justifying the payment of almost $50,000 for advertising in support of last year's budget.
Will the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health -- hey, maybe even the Premier -- tell us why the Premier's friends at Now Communications get special treatment? According to the ministry's own document, they don't have to provide full disclosure. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I would ask the members opposite to look at the publicity campaign that Now Communications did for us around Budget 2000. It was a modest campaign, $190,000 in total. I believe the taxpayers got good value for the money on this campaign. Furthermore, hon. Speaker, what I think the people of the province got was good information about what this government is doing in Budget 2000. It revealed clearly the tax regime of this province compared to others, and it showed that we are the second-lowest tax regime in the country for most issues. It revealed our government's priorities: a 7 percent lift for Health, a 4.5 percent lift for Education.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. If the minister could wrap up.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
[1430]
C. Clark: I have another e-mail that shows exactly the kind of red carpet treatment that Now Communications gets from this government. After they overspent their contract by $50,000, they sent in an invoice to the government, but the invoice was added up wrong. It was too low. So the government wrote them back correcting it, and then they added to it: "Oh, by the way, you need an additional $1,269. Just round it out to $48,500."
Can the Minister of Finance tell us exactly how long it's been his ministry's practice, his government's practice, to round off the invoice as opposed to just paying what's in the invoice in the first place?
The Speaker: Members, the time for question period has expired, but I'll ask the minister to give a brief answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to hear that members of staff are communicating clearly with contractors to ascertain precisely what is billed for and precisely what is owed.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. We will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In Committee B, I call committee stage on Bill 14.
[1435]
[ Page 16300 ]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in committee on Bill 14; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
T. Nebbeling: Section 9, I think, is an introduction of an element into the Municipal Act that is in reflection of what I believe happened on Galiano Island during the last municipal election, where lands were subdivided in very small portions, thereby adding to the voters' pot. Am I correct in assuming that that is the reason that this section is there?
Hon. C. McGregor: The answer to that question is yes.
T. Nebbeling: So this applied to non-resident property owners and
Hon. C. McGregor: It would not affect a trust that was held for an individual but would affect a trust that was being held for another trust or for a corporation.
T. Nebbeling: Another trust. That could be a trust that is for the benefit of one private individual. There are many people who have that situation, so they would fall under that number.
Hon. C. McGregor: If the nature of the trust is to protect the individual, then of course they would not be affected by this provision.
T. Nebbeling: But how is that assured? I mean, people should not have to fight and argue when they go to a municipal clerk or a returning officer during a municipal election, or come with all kinds of legal documentation to establish that they are the direct beneficiary of a trust, that the trust is there for their personal benefit. It's not very clear. I think this would disqualify a number of people who I know have properties within a trust form that is for the exclusive benefit of one individual. Is there any way that we can amend this section to reflect what the minister just said?
[1440]
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the scenario the member paints is very unlikely to ever evolve. What he's describing is an individual creating a trust to create a trust to benefit an individual. We just are not aware of any trust that would be structured in that way. What we are trying to do, in fact, is make sure that you cannot form a trust in order to have a trust that delivers and provides a benefit to the corporation. Without closing the loophole, then a new loophole could be created.
T. Nebbeling: I understand the intent, and I agree with the intent. However, I can give you a number of names of people whose parents have created a trust for a child, for the exclusive benefit of that child. That is not the individual's direct creation of the trust, but it is a benefit that has been bestowed by the parents on the child. And that child then, by the way, has grown to be an adult and therefore qualifies to participate in local or provincial elections.
Hon. C. McGregor: The example that the member gives is correct, and it would be covered by this exemption. But that would not mean that the individual would not be able to vote, because they would be entitled through the amendment to have the one vote.
T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go on with this one. But I disagree, then. The term in section 9 says "
Anyhow, I don't think we will go much further on this one. But if the minister could give it some consideration, there are plenty of people in that situation that would be affected.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Just to let the House know, in the Legislature this afternoon are a number of grade 6 to 8 students from Nova Middle School in Olympia, Washington. They are here to observe the House for a short period of time. Will all members please make them welcome.
[1445]
On section 15.
The Chair: The Chair is under the understanding that the minister has an amendment to section 15. Could the minister move that now, please.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 15, in the proposed section 172.6 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "be entitled to vote under section 161" and substituting "meet the qualifications referred to in section 161 (1) (a)".]
On section 15 as amended.
T. Nebbeling: Sorry for the confusion, but last year we had the same problem. This time I really think we agreed that we would go by the sections 1 to 252.
Section 15 of course relates to the counterpetition. We have spent a lot of time in previous years debating why this
[ Page 16301 ]
side of the House, the opposition, feels that the counterpetition provisions really do not empower local government but do empower special interest groups. I don't think the minister would accept an amendment from me at this stage, so I'm going to focus on some other elements that we have not dealt with in the past but which I still think have some relevance.
The first one is in paragraph 172.4. Minister, you have in subsection (3): "For the purpose of subsection (2) (g), the local government must make a fair estimate of the total number of electors of the area to which the counterpetition opportunity applies." What kind of directions has the government or the ministry given to clerks, administrators or returning officers to assure a representation -- a number -- that fairly and truly represents the voters that are within the group that can be considered for the counterpetition?
Hon. C. McGregor: As part of the implementation around changes to the Municipal Act, we will be preparing a variety of materials with local government, and we will be preparing a best-practices guide around the issue of counterpetitions. What we plan on including in that is the opportunity to actually have a list of considerations that local governments or other administrators should use when making a fair estimate of the total number of electors. That would include everything, of course, from voters lists for previous elections to looking at changes in demographics and population in regions -- being able to add or subtract those from the population estimates as based on the voters list.
[1450]
T. Nebbeling: Of course, this is going to take, again, a considerable amount of work. This whole counterpetition idea or initiative, the way it has been implemented by the government, is beginning to be more and more a make-work project than anything else. I do not think that is really in the interest of municipalities, nor is it in the interest of people working in the municipal or local government.
There have been a number of these counterpetitions. Or at least announcements have been made that counterpetition opportunities were available to citizens. Few have taken advantage of it. However, the few that did take advantage of this
Can the minister give me some guidelines that have then been used in the previous counterpetitions, which have taken place to ensure that indeed the number that was used to establish the 5 percent was truly a reflection of what the voting population at the time was?
Hon. C. McGregor: The staff inform me that to their knowledge there have never been any questions from the public around the estimations that have been given to try and achieve the 5 percent of the counterpetition process.
But I am concerned that this is really a question that we canvassed well in estimates and not specifically related to the amendments that we're dealing with here today. We're not amending the 5 percent issue; that is remaining the same. So it isn't a matter of discussion here. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion for the member, but I'm just trying to be sure that we stick to the amendments that we actually have introduced into the act.
T. Nebbeling: It's funny, because in section 15 it says, "The following Division is added in Part 4," and then the section that I just quoted to the minister is the third section of paragraph 172.4. So it is there. I think that as this is an add-on to that section, it should be open for debate.
However, I wasn't going to go further on this one, because clearly the ministry does not have firm guidelines to ensure that indeed that process and the result of that process reflect the true number of people who are qualified to vote -- and the 5 percent number will be derived from that. So I'm okay with section 15 now.
Section 15 as amended approved.
On section 16.
T. Nebbeling: This particular section is very confusing, because it is an amendment of an amendment of an amendment. That section was dealt with in Bill 88, and it was also dealt with in Bill 31.
My concern, Madam Minister, is that the list of authorities that can act on behalf of the municipality, be it a commission or be it another forum, is so long and so extensive that by its character it's almost excluding any other group that could be involved in managing certain public facilities or providing certain public services -- that this group would be excluded.
[1455]
I give, as an example, community-owned playing fields. Often the communities, especially in rural areas, give the use of a playing field and almost the management of a playing field to a local ball club, for example. But it does not have legal status. It's not a commission; it is not an agent. They are not, as of today, with these new directions and the new specifications in this bill, part of the group that could, on behalf of the municipality, manage this playground, for example. Has the minister thought about that particular problem, which could create quite a few problems in smaller communities?
Hon. C. McGregor: This section is designed to make description of the authority to establish commissions, which would have the authority to manage such matters as the member makes reference to -- for instance, playing fields. It does not mean that the local government doesn't establish the rules by which that is managed. Of course they would continue to do so. But the commission itself could manage on the basis of the rules that had been set by the local authority.
T. Nebbeling: That's the problem. It has to be a commission established by the municipality or by the village -- whatever. The coach of a football team who, once a week, manages that football field with his junior teams is not a commissioner. If he wants to be a commissioner, he would be subject to all kinds of other rules that are in other sections, and it would be pretty onerous. So I think the coach of a football team who would be responsible for managing that football field on the particular week or evening that is his or her turn, would be disqualified from participating there. That is my
[ Page 16302 ]
concern. I think the list is so extensive that it excludes people rather than leaving it open for other forms of management to be introduced as well.
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, there certainly is no requirement on the part of the local government to set in place a commission through which to manage after regulations have been set. There's nothing to stop a local government from entering into an agreement with the football club or any other agency that they might see as being the appropriate one to manage it on the basis of their authority. So I'm not sure
T. Nebbeling: The regulations that apply to this section make certain conditions for being responsible for a municipal facility or a municipal operation. And like the minister said, it is in the form of commissions.
If you look at section 176, paragraphs 1 and 3, it's very clear what kind of authority is required to fulfil that municipal regulatory mandate. And that is the problem, Madam Minister, because I think smaller operations that do not have a formal legal status -- like I explained to you, a small football club -- would certainly not fit within that regulatory requirement. That, I think, is the problem; I think it is exclusive rather than inclusive.
[1500]
Hon. C. McGregor: Section 176(1) is amended, and it makes reference to the local government's ability to enter into agreements. It gives a broad regulatory power in that section -- section 176(1)(a)(i). It describes how the local government may enter into "agreements respecting the undertaking, provision and operation of its services." So that is a broad regulatory ability that the local government can have.
Establishing commissions is an entirely different section of the act, and the two are not necessarily related. The first gives them an authority to enter into agreements, and it could be with a commission or some other agency. The second piece under section 16, paragraph (b), adds an additional (g) to the original section 176(1), which makes reference to enabling them to use a commission as one of those tools.
Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
T. Nebbeling: Although I'm not going to argue with this particular section being there, I do not understand why it is there. The thing is that mayors have always had the right to establish standing committees. I know that in section 218 there has been reference to the ability of a mayor to create a standing committee, but I do not understand why this particular section has been amended. It does in a sense erode the powers and duties set out in subsections 2(d) and 3 of section 218.
Hon. C. McGregor: There were two sections of the act that made reference to the duties or power of the mayor to establish committees. What this section does is eliminate it as a duty of the mayor to establish standing committees, but in section 239 the power to establish committees is maintained. It just eliminates the duplication.
Sections 21 to 32 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
T. Nebbeling: This section relates to the power that can be given by adoption of a bylaw. What I do not understand is how the power to amend or appeal that is given by this section is identical to the power that is given under section 27(4) under the Interpretation Act. What's the reason to take it out of the Interpretation Act and put it in here?
[1505]
Hon. C. McGregor: This section was added as a rewording of the identical provisions in the Interpretation Act, putting it into the Local Government Act so that local governments would be aware of all of those sections of the act and how they applied to their duties.
The Chair: Just to inform the members, we have another group of students, grades 6 to 8, from Nova Middle School in Olympia, Washington. Would all members please make them welcome also.
T. Nebbeling: The reason, then, for taking this particular section out of the Interpretation Act and putting it into the Municipal Act
Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it was a relatively common complaint of local governments to come and say: "Well, we don't have the ability to do this certain change to a bylaw, a sunset clause or the like." And as a result of that, we'd say: "Well, yes indeed, you do have those powers under the Interpretation Act." As a result of that continued reference to, "Oh well, we need to have this ability and power," we decided to make explicit reference to it in the Municipal Act.
T. Nebbeling: There are some other sections, then, in the Interpretation Act, like section 14(2). I think we have been discussing that, but I think a lot of council members would like to know about it before they actually get into a situation where section 14(2) will have impact on what the council does. The minister is well aware that 14(2) is, of course, the section that allows Crown corporations and the government not to comply with local laws, bylaws and land planning issues. Nor will they have to pay property tax or other assessments. Very few council members are aware of that particular section until they get hit, as a community, with a Crown corporation's action in the town. And when they find that they're powerless, the reaction is also: "It would have been nice if we'd known that." So maybe it would be an idea to put that in the act as well.
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we've engaged in this lengthy process with local governments, through which we've identified those areas of concern to them and to our own staff as a result of frequent questions and complaints and issues that have been raised around the definition of powers that are available to local governments. So that's the nature of the reason that this particular section was added to the act. And if similar circumstances arise in the application of other portions, I'm sure we'll consider it in the future.
Sections 33 and 34 approved.
[ Page 16303 ]
On section 35.
T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me clarification: under this authority to establish commissions, does that include local heritage commissions?
[1510]
Hon. C. McGregor: The answer to that would be yes.
T. Nebbeling: I didn't check, but section 953 of the Municipal Act actually gives the authority to establish local heritage commissions and gives certain protections to actions by these heritage commissions. Will the protection that comes with the appointment of a commission go in with this section as well, then?
Hon. C. McGregor: This section deals with personal liability and how it applies to the variety of commissions, which will include the heritage commissions the member makes reference to. We amended the previous section, 176, which we've already dealt with, to give it full authority to establish commissions, including heritage commissions. When we get to section 953, the member will find that that has been repealed, because it has been included in section 176 with the broad power to establish commissions.
Sections 35 to 45 inclusive approved.
On section 46.
T. Nebbeling: A quick question on this one. The wording "Money borrowed or revenue raised" is now being changed to "Money held by a municipality," and it has to do with the management of these funds. Why are we broadening the control of government over funds that are within the control of a municipality which are not from borrowing or revenues held from traditional sources? I can see, in many instances, where funds are held for a period of time as a control mechanism to make sure that a job gets finished. I can see that the municipality, in the parks and recreation department, holds funds for organizations that are having functions with the municipality and have a damage deposit. Is all this now going to be under this control, or
[1515]
Hon. C. McGregor: First, section 336 was introduced last year. All we're doing now is
T. Nebbeling: Well, it clearly says that money borrowed or revenue raised, while subject to certain conditions, this money could be reinvested. Now it says that all money held by a municipality will have certain conditions under which it can be reinvested. So I think, the way it is read, that there are definitely
I'll give an example. We are having sections in here where people can pay
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'm confused by the member's comments, because this section is meant to allow the type of investment he just described.
T. Nebbeling: Okay. I agree with you. I read it wrong so -- good move.
Sections 46 to 52 inclusive approved.
On section 53.
T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question: if a person goes in a payment scheme with the municipality and changes his or her mind after, say, two or three years, is it difficult to go back to what traditionally was the form of payment? Or is this all
Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it's not difficult to change. It's an annual exercise. Municipalities would want the person to be able to indicate in writing. But that's not difficult to do.
T. Nebbeling: Is this also the section that allows senior citizens to defer payment of property tax now?
Hon. C. McGregor: It's not.
T. Nebbeling: Okay.
Sections 53 to 65 inclusive approved.
[1520]
On section 66.
T. Nebbeling: This is the first of a series of sections that have to do with the special areas that have the improvement status. It is no secret that there have been a number of very -- how would I say it? -- controversial improvement area situations that have arisen in the last couple of years. The one that comes to mind, of course, is the Naramata situation with the dispute over the water cost and who is going to carry that cost.
It is kind of telling that at a time when the dispute is coming to a head and the controversy is getting stronger and stronger, we see the minister, in a sense, taking more distance from this whole issue by basically delegating her powers to a local board and thereby giving them as their responsibility all the financial and legal headaches that come with an issue such as that.
When this section gets enacted, are there, anywhere, provisions put in place that will save these special improve-
[ Page 16304 ]
ment districts from having to absorb the dispute and the financial consequences of the dispute? Or is the minister going to be responsible until these various disputes have been brought to a conclusion?
[P. Nettleton in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.
In no instance should these provisions be considered a transfer of liability. There is no transfer of liability in any of these clauses. There is still the duty on the part of an improvement district to exercise their authority correctly, as is the case in similar organizations.
T. Nebbeling: In a sense, empowering these improvement districts, the way these sections between section 66 and section 85 deal with it, almost makes an improvement district equal to municipal status. Clearly, if you look at the authority given to these boards and how they have to operate it
[1525]
Considering that there is so much going on in the improvement districts
Hon. C. McGregor: It is, of course, the duty of every improvement district to take all of their responsibilities very seriously. Improvement districts have been around for some considerable time, and there are small and large improvement districts. It is true, as the member states, that they do have significant powers to govern. They provide important services; they have the power to tax. They also have the power to expropriate property in order to provide their services.
Despite having all those powers, there also needs to be the appropriate checks and balances so that there is effective accountability and more opportunity for the public and the members that are served through the improvement district structure to have the ability to ask questions, to examine decisions, to elect their appropriate representatives and to ensure that appropriate staff are hired. It is a duty that they have to make sure that the improvement district has the appropriate checks and balances and acts on behalf of the ratepayers that are a part of that improvement district.
The ministry's role has always been to provide advice and assistance to those improvement districts when it's requested. These changes -- the amendments to the act -- don't change that at all. In fact, the ministry continues to provide that advice to improvement districts.
T. Nebbeling: I come back to Naramata and this situation again, because it's getting a fair amount of publicity still. Some of the disputes that some people thought were behind us are being brought back again. Looking at the history and how the ministry, in the past, made the Okanagan water district responsible for that area, based on certain assumptions that the district board had that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would back them up
I just fear that, with these sections, the distance that the government has taken from the Naramata issue over the last two years, in spite of promises that they would not
It's all timing, I suppose, in life. And to see this portion of the bill introduced at a time when this Naramata issue is coming to a head is just not giving me much comfort. I just cannot see where the ministry is saying, through introducing these sections: "As we introduce these sections, we give more authority to the people that run the district, but we are there, and we will make sure that harm will not come to them." I don't see it in this section. I just see a distance taken by the ministry from the people of Naramata. That's the reason for my concern, and I hope the minister can give us some assurance that my concerns are unfounded.
[1530]
Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member's comments around the concerns he has related to Naramata, and I'd be happy to offer to have a meeting with him to talk specifically about that issue.
I think it's fair to say that the concerns that we have in the ministry are broader in focus, and that is to ensure that there is an opportunity for citizens to be as proactive as they can in the management of the services that are provided for them. This is a theme that's repeated frequently throughout the Municipal Act, and from every corner of the province, citizens are demanding greater and greater roles in decision-making around important decisions which affect their lives.
Some of these improvement districts that exist in the province are particularly small. Certainly we are trying to encourage improvement districts, where it's possible, to consider linking with existing regional district services, because that gives a greater capacity, particularly on the support staff side, to ensure that the appropriate responsibilities and accountability measures are taken. But I think that what the member is making reference to is a concern that government needs to pay attention to improvement districts, to provide support and advice as is necessary, and I assure the member that we will continue that role.
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that statement. Can the minister maybe tell me how many improvement districts are going
[ Page 16305 ]
to be affected by these sections? How many improvement districts are today going to be operating under these new guidelines? Is the minister aware of how many of these improvement districts actually have some legal problems they have to deal with right now? Well, I first want to know how many are impacted by this.
Hon. C. McGregor: There are 273 improvement districts across the province. The staff that are with me are not intimately aware of how many legal disputes might be ongoing in them. Our information is that it's probably relatively small numbers.
I would just remind the member that we're dealing with sections of this bill, and I don't believe this is a matter that is dealt with through the amendments.
Sections 66 to 80 inclusive approved.
On section 81.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to section 81, standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Hon. C. McGregor: If it was necessary for the member to have a five-minute recess to review that amendment, I'd be amenable to that.[SECTION 81,
(a) in the proposed section 747.1 of the Municipal Act, by deleting the proposed subsection (2),
(b) in the proposed section 747.1 of the Municipal Act, by adding the following subsections:
(5) In addition to the authority under subsection (1), as a condition of(a) the approval of a subdivision, or(6) In addition to the authority under subsection (1), if an agreement under subsection (9) applies, as a condition of the issuance of a building permit, a board of trustees may require that the owner of the land provide, on the site being developed, works and services in accordance with the standards established in a bylaw under this section.(b) if an agreement under subsection (9) applies, the issuance of a building permit, a board of trustees may require that the owner of the land provide works and services, in accordance with the standards established in a bylaw under this section, on that portion of a highway immediately adjacent to the site being subdivided or developed, up to the centre line of the highway.
(7) Requirements under subsections (5) and (6)
(a) may only be made to the extent that they are directly attributable to the subdivision or development, and(8) If the owner agrees to provide the services referred to in subsection (7) (b), section 933 (8) (a) [deduction of amounts paid by owner] applies to the calculation of the capital expenditure charge.(b) must not include specific services that are included in the calculations used to determine the amount of a capital expenditure charge under section 746 (1) (f), unless the owner agrees to provide the services.
(9) A board of trustees and a local government may enter into an agreement under which the local government may refuse to issue building permits in accordance with this section.
(10) The authority to require works and services under this section is limited to works and services that are within the objects of the improvement district as described in its letters patent.
(c) in the proposed section 747.2 of the Municipal Act, by adding the following subsections:
(1.1) A board of trustees may require that the owner of land that is to be subdivided or developed provide excess or extended services.(1.2) If a board of trustees makes a requirement under subsection (1.1), the cost of providing the excess or extended services must be paid for
(a) by the improvement district, or(b) if the board of trustees considers its costs to provide all or part of these services to be excessive, by the owner of the land being subdivided or developed., and
(d) in the proposed section 747.2 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "If the board of trustees requires an owner of land that is to be subdivided or developed to provide excess or extended services and requires the owner to pay all or part of those services," and substituting "If the board of trustees imposes a requirement under subsection (1.2) (b),".]
The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
[1540]
[P. Nettleton in the chair.]
The Chair: The committee will come to order. We've adopted sections 68 to 80 inclusive, and we are now on section 81, considering the minister's amendment. Shall section 81 as amended pass?
Section 81 as amended approved.
Sections 82 to 86 inclusive approved.
On section 87.
T. Nebbeling: This is an important section. It reflects, in a sense, the first step in the new relationship between local governments. I am concerned about the complexity of some of the requirements including the bylaws and acts that have been enacted upon prior to the date that this section comes into effect. They will stand. And I understand that it is difficult to do it differently.
However, if anybody in the future wants to check what an act or a bylaw that has been enacted in a regional district amends, what it was supposed to do, it's going to be difficult to track all that -- maybe not difficult for the regional district of the lower mainland. But if I have to check a bylaw that was passed in 1996 in a regional district in the Okanagan, it may be pretty complicated, for me. It must be even more complicated for a person who truly is not into a local government but needs to know the situation.
Is there any provision that over time the existing bylaws that may not be compatible to what we are introducing here will be adjusted? Or is it just going to be there forever and ever and complicating things to check out forever and ever?
The Chair: For clarity, the Chair will go back to section 81 and put the question on the minister's amendment. Shall the amendment pass?
[ Page 16306 ]
Amendment approved.
On section 87.
Hon. C. McGregor: If the member could just repeat his question, because we have some confusion here as to what he is actually asking
T. Nebbeling: Four minutes and 12 seconds to figure out that she didn't understand the question.
My concern now is that there is going to be no legislation in place that will direct regional districts, empower regional districts, to do various things. Within these powers there are powers that will exceed what regional districts can do today.
What they have done up to the date that this act is being enacted
In the first year it may not be difficult to track bylaws, for example, with waste disposal or transportation bylaws that have been created in certain regional districts. But over time it will be difficult to track these kinds of bylaws.
My point is: now that we're going in a new direction, are we going to have a whole set of bylaws that are in place today within the regional districts throughout the province? Are they going to be hanging there forever and ever and ever? And the new form of regional empowerment will create new bylaws -- sometimes may be in conflict with what is already there. It's going to be very complicated to track all that.
[1545]
So my question is: is there going to be a period of time where the regional districts will be required to bring bylaws from prior to the new guidelines or the new empowerment of regional districts
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, what we're trying to avoid here is forcing regional districts to change every bylaw to match the new act unnecessarily. So of course, when a municipal or a regional government begins to use new powers that it has and has to adopt a new bylaw to do so, then they will either repeal or amend their pre-existing bylaw. We are not requiring a period of time under which they must bring those bylaws up to the new system. As long as they're continuing to use them and don't need to change them, we're not requiring them to do so.
Section 87 approved.
Sections 88 to 91 inclusive approved.
On section 92.
T. Nebbeling: This section has to do with the appointment of directors on the boards. The traditional way of appointing for a three-year period will be replaced with a one-year appointment. Actually, it goes further than that; a member can be replaced at any time, I believe. Has this been canvassed with the regional districts as a good way of dealing with board representation?
The reason I'm saying this is that in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, they had some concern that there would be a potential constant change of directors not being fully aware of all the issues that had been going on. They felt that there was some security in the fact that indeed a director and an alternate were appointed for a three-year period. Did the consultation take place? If so, I suppose they all went, then, with this kind of suggestion. Maybe the minister can enlighten me on that one.
Hon. C. McGregor: It is an important point. It is sort of trying to find the balance between continuity -- which is incredibly important for people who serve on a regional district, so that they can continue to do their work -- and also the principle of the autonomy of the local government to appoint the individuals that they believe represent, and should represent, them on the regional district board. So we did take considerable time to canvass these options at the symposium we held with regional districts from across the province. In fact, this item was specifically canvassed, and 83 percent of those present at the symposium favoured the model that we have introduced here in the bill.
Sections 92 to 101 inclusive approved.
On section 102.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 102 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 102,
(a) in the proposed section 796.3 (3) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "that section 803" and substituting "section 803",
(b) in the proposed section 800.1 (1) (e) (iii) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "paragraphs (a) and (b)," and substituting "subparagraphs (i) and (ii),", and
(c) in the proposed section 801.5 (1) (a) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "petition" and substituting "sufficient petition".]
[1550]
On section 102 as amended.
T. Nebbeling: This is a section that is the empowerment of regional districts, and there are a couple of questions that I have in regards to the powers within this section, related to the counterpetition. There's a statement in section 797(1), I think it is, which says that for counterpetition requirements that apply on issues related to municipal governments, the same requirements would apply to the regional district. Can the minister tell me if there are any situations where a municipality would be forced to go through a counterpetition process, but if the issue is dealt with on a regional level, the counterpetition requirement would not be there?
Hon. C. McGregor: The intention is that they always be parallel. Yes, they're meant to be parallel.
T. Nebbeling: Section 796.2 is the section where the regional districts can establish works or facilities outside the regional district for the purpose of a regional district service. The board, by bylaw, can regulate the use of work and facilities. Where would this apply? I have been trying to think of
[ Page 16307 ]
where a situation could arise where this could happen, and I just couldn't come up with an idea, so I thought I would ask the minister.
Hon. C. McGregor: There are a few examples of that in particular that we could think of. The case of the GVRD, where it operates a landfill outside of its boundaries, as well as parks -- those are two examples that we could think of.
T. Nebbeling: Section 797 gives powers equivalent to municipalities in three divisions: fire protection, health, and waste and recycling. Is there a mandatory requirement that municipalities have to opt into these programs? Oh, I see the head of the assistant already saying no. So each municipality still has the right to run its own fire department, its own waste management program.
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the member is correct. If the members of the regional district wish to engage in shared services, they can, but there is no requirement to do so.
T. Nebbeling: In section 797.1 we have a number of operations related to animals that could be handled by the regional district -- keeping animals, leashing and out-of-doors control, dog licences, compensation for injuries to livestock and animal pounds.
[1555]
Does that mean that you become part of the bylaw that controls animal control, or is this something where a jurisdiction can opt in or opt out? If the GVRD decides to have an animal control team established in Surrey, would that mean that everybody has to be part of it? Secondly, even if you don't want to be part of it, would there still be a fee charged to the other communities, although they may not take benefit from it?
Hon. C. McGregor: Such arrangements would always be subject to agreement between the parties. Municipalities would be able to opt in or opt out, and that would form a part of the bylaw used to establish the service and setting out who participates, how much they pay and so on.
T. Nebbeling: That applies, then, also to (e): "in relation to the regulation of fire alarm systems and security alarm systems
Are these kinds of powers given to the GVRD to be involved in these kind of services based on a two-thirds majority of the board's decision to go along with this. Or can each and every community within the GVRD individually decide yes or no?
Hon. C. McGregor: With these services that are listed here, each municipality would have to opt in. The other option would be to take the issue to the voters.
T. Nebbeling: So the new power of the regional district
Hon. C. McGregor: I just want to point out that this isn't a new authority. This has been in existence for more than ten years. In the example that the member just gave, the regional district would have the authority, but they would go to all of the voters in the entire region.
T. Nebbeling: I was not aware that the regional district had that authority, maybe because they have never used that authority for a referendum.
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: They have had referendums? Has that particular right of the regional district been used in the last ten years to
Hon. C. McGregor: The staff believe it has been used from time to time, but it is a much rarer form of using the authority. Generally, it is the municipal opting-in model that's chosen.
[1600]
T. Nebbeling: You're talking about section 797.3, which gives the board the authority to have a referendum. What I'm trying to establish is if this can be over the head of a local council or if this is always done with the cooperation of a local council -- if the cooperation is needed. Can the GVRD have a referendum in West Vancouver and not North Vancouver, for example?
Hon. C. McGregor: I believe we are mixing up sections 797.1 and 797.3. When I was talking about 797.1 and the methodology that can be used for establishing a service, included is the referendum option -- and was described. That is generally not the option that regional districts choose. Generally when they're establishing a service, they choose the option where each municipality makes a decision to join or not. Section 797.3 makes reference to, once a service is established, how referendums are held.
T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to quibble over wording. But it does say here to establish a service "that is or that may be operated." So maybe it means that it is not necessarily there.
Section 797.2 is a section that gives the authority for fees and charges. I take it that includes taxation. What would be the process when section 364, under that paragraph, comes into effect, where the regional district is being given the right to collect fees and charges that are in the form of liens? How would that apply? Would it be a direct action of a regional district, or would another body be involved? Would that be the local council?
Hon. C. McGregor: In section 364, the regional district does have the authority to collect as a lien against the property. I'm told that generally, the regional district takes the view
[ Page 16308 ]
that they should wait until that lien becomes taxes owing. Then the municipal government would collect those taxes owing and remit it to the regional district.
[1605]
T. Nebbeling: I would like to go to section 798. This is a section that gives regional districts general powers that are equivalent to municipal powers. The first question -- and it applies to all these different areas where that general power would apply -- is: when there is a conflict between the local government and the regional board, how will that be settled when it comes to all these issues? When I look at some of the equivalent powers that are given to regional districts, I can see some potential conflicts. Is there a dispute provision in the act that would allow some dispute settlement between local government and the board? Or are either of these two powers, the local power or the regional power, superseding each one?
Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any disputes between powers -- between regional and municipal governments. Perhaps the member can give us an example. We're not aware of any conflicts that exist between those two authorities.
T. Nebbeling: I could see a dispute arising between a local government and a board government on land issues, where local government has got certain ideas for the use of land, and the regional board would come in and say: "No no, we need that piece of land for a purpose." I'm not going to specify the purpose, but it could be a landfill, or it could be a park purpose. It could be anything. These kinds of disputes could arise. The expropriation powers
Now, I expect the minister to say that we expect a new consultation process to be part of going through these kinds of actions. Nevertheless, when I read that the regional board has the same power as a municipality when it comes to expropriation powers, I have concern about that.
I could come up with a couple of others. Compensation for non-expropriation action is another one where the opinion of a local elected council could very well be different than that of the board, which is made up of members that have only a small representation of the community where something could go wrong, and the rest would be from other communities. I think it would be seen as undue interference if these powers would be used contrary to local desire. And I'm not saying that the board would violate bylaws or anything. It is principles that are important to the local community being violated by a board that is made up of members from other communities that I'm talking about.
D. Zirnhelt: Leave to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
D. Zirnhelt: In the gallery we have the honour of being visited by 40 members of Kwaleen Elementary School, with their teacher, Kim Zalay, and other adults that have accompanied them. I would like the House to make them welcome and assure them that I told them the truth. They asked whether there would be any fights in here. I said there would certainly be no verbal fights. Occasionally there's verbal sparring, but the Chair would be totally in control and everybody would be on their best behaviour.
[1610]
Hon. C. McGregor: I guess, in theory, you want me to say that there could be some conflicts that would develop over time. I'm going to use the example that the member used, which is a landfill. Let's say that the local municipal government has an area of land that is vacant. The regional district has decided they would like to place a landfill there. The local municipal government has the authority to determine, through zoning, whether or not that is an appropriate use in that location. The regional district cannot overrule the power of the local government to make that decision.
We assume that local governments and regional governments can work together to achieve common outcomes. In the example of landfills, quite frequently there are disputes over where these things are sited. As a result of those disputes, a lot of work is done to try to find the locations where there is agreement between the local government that might be impacted on the placement of the landfill and the regional district that is offering a waste management service and clearly requires a location in which to place the solid waste. So I think the model
T. Nebbeling: It's interesting that the minister says, "Well, you know, there's a municipal jurisdiction and if the regional district wants to do a landfill, as an example, outside that jurisdiction, then obviously it's not a municipal issue any longer." I'm talking about lands within the municipal jurisdiction where that conflict could happen.
Instead of using a landfill, I'll take the situation on Bowen Island, where for a long time the municipality has had a need to get a road realigned in order to accommodate the traffic coming off the ferry and going onto the ferry. The regional district owns a piece of land there. That land is under the control of the regional district. And the regional district, contrary to the community plan, is saying: "Sorry, we want to keep it as it is, and we're not going to accommodate you."
That is an equal power on that land versus the municipality. That is a serious conflict, and that conflict has been there now for two or three years. The Bowen Islanders have only had a municipality since last year, of course. Nevertheless, here is an example where the GVRD and the local community, or the local council, have a conflict. And because they have equal powers, there's no solution.
Maybe the minister remembers my first question: is there a conflict resolution associated with these empowerments so that we can get out of these kinds of situations? I could easily come up with a number of other examples of where it is just loggerheads.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's true; conflicts happen all the time between local governments and their neighbouring jurisdictions and sometimes their regional districts. No, we do not have a provision in the act that forces them to go through a
[ Page 16309 ]
conflict resolution exercise. We assume that that is what they will do in the nature of trying to work out their disputes, but we do not legislate them to do so.
T. Nebbeling: That's a fatal flaw. The reason I say this is that we are just going through a horrendous infight in the GVRD, because the GVRD decided, as a board -- not unanimously but as a board with a majority of two-thirds -- to go with the TransLink system. This system is creating more controversy and more anguish on the board, to the point that right now there are communities that are desperately seeking ways to get out of the GVRD. That is because there is no dispute resolution. So to introduce in a bill here today new elements that will actually empower the GVRD to go into many other areas where they are not there, where they will be constantly facing these kinds of conflicts
To sit, as the minister did and say, "Well, if there's a conflict, that's too bad; they have to figure it out
[1615]
Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes reference to the GVRD and TransLink. I just would remind the member that that's covered by the GVTA agreement and act. It's not covered by the powers and services that are listed here. It's separate legislation, and it is a different matter entirely than what is being introduced in this bill.
In terms of dispute resolution, however, the member knows -- and I spoke at some length in second reading -- about the nature of the dispute resolution process that we are putting in place around service agreements. So that is something that we will have the opportunity to discuss as we go through the bill.
T. Nebbeling: I think I made my point. I think the minister is splitting hairs when she starts to separate the transit organization of the GVRD from that body. It is the same board that is responsible for the decisions that then will be exercised or acted on by the TransLink board. I don't think you can separate them.
I think, as I said before, it is another shortfall in this bill that I think should not have been there, because too many conflicts are happening today throughout British Columbia between local governments and regional boards or the local authorities. So here was an opportunity, Madam Minister, to do something that would have helped, and we have missed the boat. I would like to go
Section 102 as amended approved.
Section 103 approved.
On section 104.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 104 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
On the amendment.[SECTION 104, in the proposed section 802.3 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "If the inspector" and substituting "If a bylaw repealing an establishing bylaw is submitted to the inspector for approval and the inspector".]
T. Nebbeling: This is actually the section that then was mentioned by the minister that could be used in conflict situations, I believe. Or am I
How would this section apply to some of the examples that I mentioned earlier and that the minister even brought in, with the landfill situation? If there is a conflict between the parties and if service should be there, or if it should be in a particular location because of the land use conflict that may arise -- I use Bowen Island as a situation -- would this be the tool that the minister believes would be able to solve the problem? The minister alluded earlier on that there was indeed a conflict resolution component in the bill. If this is it, I find it rather weak.
Hon. C. McGregor: Section 104 is about a description of what happens when a regional district wants to wind up a service, and there is no agreement on how to wind up that service -- how to end it. Then the dispute resolution mechanisms will apply.
Amendment approved.
Section 104 as amended approved.
Section 105 approved.
On section 106.
Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move an amendment to section 106 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 106,
(a) in the proposed section 813 of the Municipal Act, in the definition of "service withdrawal" by deleting "to 813.18." and substituting "to 813.19.", and
(b) in the proposed section 813.13 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "subsection 1)" and substituting "subsection (1)".]
On section 106 as amended.
T. Nebbeling: This is a quick question. In the past the financials of regional districts were to be advertised, I believe, in local newspapers. Does this section change the budget? Does this section have any impact on the obligation for a regional district to advertise its budget and its financial statements in the local newspaper?
[1620]
Hon. C. McGregor: Section 106 is a new section created for dispute resolution, and it's section 114 where we deal with, perhaps, the matter the member is raising.
T. Nebbeling:
[ Page 16310 ]
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: Okay.
Section 106 as amended approved.
Sections 107 to 129 inclusive approved.
On section 130.
T. Nebbeling: As we have discussed during estimates, the need for an official community plan is no longer required. So first of all, I'm surprised to see a referral to this official community plan statement here. What I still haven't figured out is: by eliminating the official community plan requirement, the five-year requirement, have we now actually authorized the regional districts' broader authority on community planning through the community growth strategy, which is a regional approach? Can the minister enlighten me on that one?
Hon. C. McGregor: We were just talking about OCPs. The member mentions a five-year period. In reference to OCPs, that five years would be planning for housing development, but that does not imply or require a local government to review it in a five-year period. In fact, there is no requirement to review it within a certain time frame. There is a practice that many local governments have to review their official community plans on a cycle, but it is not covered by these amendments.
[1625]
T. Nebbeling: Now I understand that the five-year cycle that has been practised -- a practice, I think, dictated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the past
Part of the plan, I believe, that the minister foresaw happening is that official community plans, with the five-year requirement, will no longer be a requirement under the new guidelines that communities can work under. Official community plans were a legal requirement, as far as I know. Municipal Affairs often did financially subsidize official community plans for communities to make it happen. So it's a bit of a mystery to me for me. On the one hand, I see a paper saying: "No longer is there a requirement for an official community plan." And then I see sections here that start talking about what the community plan must incorporate.
I had the idea that the whole process of community planning was no longer going to be just a community, but that it was going to be more on a growth strategy for the region. This would then include, of course, the requirement that a community, when they make changes to the official community plan, would consider impact on adjacent communities. It could even go as far as
Hon. C. McGregor: I don't think it's implied in any way that we're going to stop doing OCPs, nor does it say that we're only going to do regional growth strategies. In fact, we're going to continue to do both.
The regional growth strategy tools that we have make sure that there is consultation and consideration of official community plans as a part of that process. I'd certainly be happy to provide more information about how those two function together, if that's the member's concern. But there's no change here that's going to impact on the ability to plan on both a broad regional basis as well as on a more focused neighbourhood basis, through the official community plan.
T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to make much more of this particular one. I think it is no secret that the growth strategy has turned out to be a very problematic form of doing community planning, so I would have welcomed seeing a more locally concentrated planning effort again. But that is obviously not what the minister is intending to do with these amendments, so we'll leave it as it is.
Sections 130 to 136 inclusive approved.
On section 137.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to section 137 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 137, in the proposed section 882 (2) (b) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "affirmative vote of all directors" and substituting "affirmative vote of a majority of all directors".]
Section 137 as amended approved.
Sections 138 to 141 inclusive approved.
On section 142.
T. Nebbeling: This is a section that applies to the public hearing procedures, I believe. In the past there was a strict guideline given to mayors or the Chair during a public hearing on the wording that was to be used to show to the public what the intent of the public hearing was, what the procedures were during the public hearing and what the role of council was. I think this was a universal, almost common-law type of statement made to safeguard council members from potentially being sued for having said, "He did the wrong thing" during a public hearing or making statements afterwards.
I'm not surprised to see that the minister wants to change that statement by the Chair of a public hearing, but I find it very surprising that the minister now, with this amendment, allows the Chairs of these public hearings to just basically create their own little version of what they think is appropriate to say. And I think, in the future, we're going to have numbers and numbers of
[1630]
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: It's 142 I'm talking about.
[ Page 16311 ]
So I would really like to see the government, if they want to make a statement for public hearings, as a legal entity, at least incorporate it as a statement in the act, if it couldn't be left where it was. Somewhere, somehow, councils, in order to make sure that they don't get themselves on thin ice, should have those guidelines. It is very important. I hope that in the future the minister will consider what I am saying here, because otherwise I think we're going to have more and more decisions fought in the courts.
Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I think the important thing to note about this section is that it's added to the act. In other words, it's requiring in the law that the Chair of public hearings establish procedural rules for the conduct of those hearings. In other words, it makes explicit that those rules have to be put in place. And this was actually asked for by local governments. Those rules have been understood in common law, but now we're enshrining them in the act.
T. Nebbeling: Could the minister then tell me what these rules are exactly? I can tell what the common-law rules are, but I don't know what the new rules are, because I don't see any description of these new rules.
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member will be reasonably familiar with how most Chairs conduct a public hearing or a public meeting. They give reasonable opportunity for everyone to speak. They provide the same rules, in terms of how long an individual can speak, for every person that's there. They don't change the rules halfway through to allow one person to speak for 15 minutes and an additional person to speak only for five, and so on. There should be courtesy extended to the individuals as they are making their presentations, and so on.
Those are the kinds of rules that are established in common law, and we will be giving guidelines to local governments to make sure that all of those principles are adhered to through the application of this provision.
Sections 142 to 196 inclusive approved.
On section 197.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 197 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 197, by deleting "c. 11," and substituting "c. 111,".]
Section 197 as amended approved.
Sections 198 to 223 inclusive approved.
On section 224.
[1635]
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 224 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 224, by deleting "274 repealed" and substituting "274 is repealed".]
Section 224 as amended approved.
Sections 225 to 265 inclusive approved.
On section 266.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to section 266 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 266, in subsection (2), by deleting "of that Act," and substituting "of that Act came into force,".]
Section 266 as amended approved.
Sections 267 to 277 inclusive approved.
On section 278.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to section 278 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 278, by deleting "under the Part 13" and substituting "under Part 13".]
Section 278 as amended approved.
Sections 279 to 281 inclusive approved.
On section 282.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to section 282 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 282,
(a) in subsection (1), by deleting "232 and 254" and substituting "231 and 253", and
(b) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:
(4) Sections 2 (a), (b) and (d) to (j), 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17 to 19, 27, 28, 31, 38 to 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 55 to 57, 60, 63, 64, 66, 68 to 73, 75, 76, 78, 79 (a) and (b), 80, 83 to 91, 94, 96 to 98, 100, 102 to 114, 116 to 120, 122 to 179, 181 to 190, 192 to 219, 221, 224 to 226, 232 to 234, 236 to 238, 245 to 247, 249, 250, 261 and 262 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]
Section 282 as amended approved.
Schedule approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 14 complete with amendments.
[ Page 16312 ]
Motion approved.
[1640]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 14, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. C. McGregor: By leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 14, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 11.
FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
Hon. J. Doyle: I move that Bill 11, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, be now read a second time.
Hon. Speaker, this government is committed to reducing costs for industry and government, while at the same time ensuring sustainable use of our forests. The amendments in Bill 11 are designed to further these goals. I would like to take some time to describe a few of the provisions of the bill that achieve the goals of sustainability and cost reduction for the industry and the province.
The bill includes an amendment which will ensure that all fines paid for contraventions of the Forest Practices Code will be put in a special account used to remedy environmental damage caused by contraventions of the code.
Another amendment extends the life of part 13 of the Forest Act and makes it more usable. Part 13 enables the government to set aside areas that are subject to land use disputes until the conflicts can be resolved. The amendments to part 13 may be controversial for some people, but continuation of the part is essential to ensure that the government has all the tools it needs to resolve land use issues.
The bill also moves definitions that were in the woodlot forest management regulations into the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Those definitions are important to ensure that soil disturbance and reforestation obligations are carried out. They had to be put into the act because they are time limited and have expired. This is largely a technical issue exercise.
We're moving to add holders of non-replaceable woodlot licences to transfer the silviculture obligations to government, after paying an appropriate amount of money to cover the cost of the ministry carrying out the silviculture work in the area of the woodlot. This is an important change for the few non-replaceable woodlot licences that are in existence, since it ensures reforestation will be done. In other words, it will eliminate the risk of default. From the licence holder's point of view, the transfer ensures certainty by freeing them up from any further silviculture obligations or liabilities.
Our cost-driver project is working to cut red tape and streamline administrative processes to cut costs for the forest industry and the government. One example is the small licence cut control measure. This gives holders of woodlot licences and small timber sale licences more flexibility in the amount of timber they must harvest over a five-year period. Legislation has required licensees to log 90 percent to 110 percent of their annual allowable cut, averaged over five years.
Many found the cut control limits difficult to meet, because on the average small licence, existing tolerance represents only a small volume of wood, and it would provide very little flexibility. We agree that the existing tolerance is unnecessarily restrictive, so we are widening the tolerance on limits from 80 percent to 120 percent. That will save these licensees money, as they will be better able to harvest according to current markets and avoid incurring penalties for failing to meet cut control limits.
Another measure in the bill eliminates the last few requirements for logging plans, a process we began in 1998 and found works well. Let me point out here that we are not losing anything other than some bureaucracy with this measure. All of the logging requirements that are in the logging plans can now be covered off by regulations.
[1645]
The bill also eliminates the requirement to comply with existing logging plans in cases where a plan and the regulations deal with the same subject matter, such as how streams are crossed. Plan holders will be required to comply with the regulation, since it allows a more performance-oriented approach, which often is much more cost-effective.
We plan to provide more ways to approve excavated and bladed trails. Those are temporary trails that are constructed during harvesting. This will reduce costs for the forest industry by reducing the administrative burden involved in approving the trails.
The bill will allow the district manager and local environmental official to relieve holders of silviculture prescriptions of their obligations in parks. This gives certainty to a small number of licensees who are currently in limbo with those prescriptions, since they cannot harvest in parks. It will also ensure that any activities under the prescriptions are compatible with park management goals.
As well, we are moving forward provisions that reduce red tape from the Forest Practices regulations into the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Those are the road regulations changes that we announced recently. They are already enforced, but this move reinforces government's commitment to those streamlining measures.
As with all the cost-driving measures, we insist that the natural environment of British Columbia's forests and the integrity of the Forest Practices Code are maintained. Actions taken as a result of the cost-driver initiative process are being closely monitored to ensure that this fundamental principle is always upheld.
I know that there are other members in this House who would like to speak on this act. I would encourage them to do so. I look forward to their comments.
J. Cashore: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Cashore: Seated in the gallery, where they can't see me
[ Page 16313 ]
tary School that they are looking at the opposition benches. This voice that they hear really is coming from the person who spoke to them a few minutes ago out on the steps. They're with Mr. Jiwa -- 47 students and some adults accompanying them. They're here from Cape Horn Elementary School learning about democracy and hopefully having a lot of fun on this visit to Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Abbott: I certainly would like to extend my welcome on behalf of the opposition to the students as well. They're very fortunate today to be able to look across and see the incoming government of British Columbia. I'm sure that it's something that they'll be able to file away for future reference.
I do want to make just a few comments with respect to Bill 11. The opposition is not going to be spending a lot of time on this bill, for reasons that I'll outline. Generally the character of this bill is beneficial. The minister, as I recall, when he introduced Bill 11at first reading, said a couple of times that the bill was modest in scope. I think that certainly is the case. As well, even the Ministry of Forests backgrounder with respect to Bill 11 says: "The amendments proposed in Bill 11 are of a minor and technical nature."
That again is certainly true of this bill. There are changes here which take us in the right direction, but they are of a modest, minor and technical nature. The bill, of course, as the minister has outlined, does propose some changes to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code Act and the Range Act. I'm certainly not going to discuss what those changes are. The minister has outlined them here, and I don't propose to talk about them all.
[1650]
There are a couple of the provisions that I should note. The provision which I welcome most in this bill is in section 9. It does relate to the new flexibility that will be offered around cut control for small licensees; that is, woodlot licensees and holders of small business sales under 10,000 cubic metres. The minister has outlined the new flexibility that will now be provided on the five-year cut control. That will certainly be welcome by woodlot licensees particularly. It's a commonsense change, and certainly the opposition welcomes the change that is proposed.
The minister indicated the one area in this bill that might prove contentious or controversial with some. He described them as the part 13 changes, which in fact are contained in section 16 of Bill 11, but they're part 13 of the Forest Act. Those are the issues around a designated area -- an area designated by the province -- because it is in dispute, for one reason or another.
Certainly there are some issues around whether the government has always properly used this power of designating an area, but I think that is a debate that's outside the scope of this bill. I don't think that there is dispute around the government needing to have that power, nor is there dispute around the modest changes to the specifying of a designated area that are contained in Bill 11. I'll just note that obviously there has been some debate in this area, but that debate is not going to be substantially affected by the contents of Bill 11.
Those are a couple of the areas. The minister has outlined other sections, which may have some modest beneficial effects in terms of controlling or reducing costs in the forest industry. I think it needs to be said, though, that the changes that are being proposed here in Bill 11 will, at best, produce pennies per cubic metre in savings for licensees in this province. It's certainly not going to be producing dollars in savings for licensees in this province. I think that needs to be said. But what's here will hopefully at least move us, in a very small way, in the right direction.
I want to note briefly, as well, before I conclude my remarks, that there continues to be a genuine and compelling need for further regulatory reform in this province. There need to be far more substantial regulatory reforms in British Columbia, well beyond the scope and character of the amendments proposed in Bill 11, for the forest industry in British Columbia to be truly globally competitive. We need far more substantial changes than what we have seen to date.
Everyone in British Columbia welcomes the revenue that flows from our forests into the coffers of British Columbia. One of the reasons why we can maintain the health and education systems that we have in British Columbia is the enormous contribution that is made from forest revenues for those purposes. Similarly, everyone welcomes the jobs that are produced through our forests in British Columbia. There are about 100,000 people directly employed in the forest industry, as we all know -- about 250,000 if we include indirect employment as well.
So again, the forests are a huge part of our economy. They are by far the greatest export out of the province of British Columbia, to the United States, Japan and elsewhere. We need to be constantly vigilant about keeping our cost structure in line in British Columbia.
At many points over the past eight or nine years of NDP government in British Columbia, we have lost the cost-competitiveness that we desperately need. We on the opposition side believe that far more substantial regulatory reform is required in British Columbia to ensure that we have a vibrant forest industry in 2000, 2001, 2010 and through the current century.
[1655]
The Forests minister and the government like to talk about the profits that the forest industry made in 1999. Certainly the turnaround in the fortunes of the industry, particularly during the first six months of 1999, were welcome. But to put the issue in context, it was the first year in four years that the industry had actually produced a return on investment. We are very concerned, on the opposition side, that as we see the softwood lumber prices that we enjoyed, particularly during the first six months of 1999, slip away
If we want to be a player in global forest markets in every cycle in every season, we have to make some very substantial changes to our tax and regulatory framework in British Columbia. Without that, we are going to see much more of what has already been indicated for the year 2000 -- that is, seasonal shutdowns of important milling facilities in British Columbia, forest workers losing their employment, and their communities and their families suffering as a consequence.
When we talk about regulatory reform, it's not simply an issue for industry; it's an issue for forest workers, for their families and for their communities. For this reason the opposi-
[ Page 16314 ]
tion is going to be supporting Bill 11. We welcome the modest regulatory reforms contained in this bill. But again we want to underline that we believe that a much more substantial regulatory reform is needed if we are going to be a competitive force, a vibrant force, a continuing force, in the global forest markets into the twenty-first century.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll recognize the Minister of Forests to close debate.
Hon. J. Doyle: Thanks to the hon. member from Shuswap, the Forests critic, for his words and the general support that he gave to the bill. He had some questions about it, but I appreciated the ten or 12 items that he mentioned in the words that he gave. I acknowledge the concerns he raised. I acknowledge, also, the points of agreement that he has with the bill.
I look forward, hon. Speaker and members of the House, to committee stage, when we can deal with them all in the context of the bill. With that, I move second reading of Bill 11.
Motion approved.
Bill 11, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 15.
The Speaker: We'll just take a few minutes, members, while we wait for the Minister of Health.
[1700]
TOBACCO DAMAGES AND
HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT
(second reading)
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise in the chamber today on second reading of Bill 15, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, because this act is enabling legislation that allows the province to sue tobacco companies to recovery health care costs that have been or will be incurred by the government for the treatment of tobacco-related disease.
When the original Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was introduced in 1997, it was the first of its kind in Canada. No other province had attempted to take on big tobacco. B.C. dared, and we launched our lawsuit in November of 1998.
We believe that the tobacco industry targets children in its marketing. We believe the industry manufactures a product that kills people. We believe the industry should be held accountable for the costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses.
The tobacco industry immediately challenged B.C.'s lawsuit, saying it was unconstitutional. In its February 2000 decision on the industry's challenge, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the underlying principles of B.C.'s legislation were constitutionally sound. This is important, because in terms of how this has been reported -- in terms of some of the discussions taken about this legislation -- this is a key aspect: the fundamental principles underlying this legislation are sound. It's important to review what these principles are: the province's entitlement to claim health care costs from tobacco companies, the province's right to pursue claims on an aggregate basis, placing the onus of proof on the tobacco industry on issues of causation, apportioning liability among the tobacco companies on the basis of market share and establishing a mechanism for disclosure of health care information while ensuring privacy of individual insured persons.
However, on one issue and one issue only did the court take issue with the legislation. This was on the issue of extraterritoriality, where the judge ruled that the act exceeded the government's constitutional authority to hold foreign companies legally responsible, on the basis of corporate relationships, for the actions of subsidiaries which sold cigarettes in British Columbia. On the basis of that finding, the judge struck down the entire act.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the province has decided to request that the Legislature repeal the original Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and re-enact the legislation with some modifications, to address the Supreme Court's concerns.
In particular, the enterprise liability provisions that would have permitted the government to sue foreign corporations on the basis of corporate relationship have been severed in this new legislation. However, it is important to note that there are new joint and several liability provisions which provide for joint liability where more than one manufacturer acted together to commit a breach of duty owed to people in British Columbia -- that is, smokers or those who might become smokers -- or where one manufacturer acted on behalf of another in committing a breach of duty.
In addition, the wording of several of the act's provisions has been changed to provide greater clarity. For example, there is a new definition of "cost of health care benefits," which among other things includes and confirms that recovery for expenditures will be calculated on a present-value basis for both past and future expenditures, and it includes the phrase "the risk of tobacco related disease" to clarify that health care benefits can be expended not only for the treatment of disease but also for treatments arising from the risk of disease.
The definition of "health care benefits" has also been expanded to ensure that all government's relevant expenditures are captured. Under the original act some benefits which were not included in the definition were to be designated by regulation. In the new act the language of this definition has been expanded to avoid the necessity of relying on regulations.
The definition of "tobacco related wrong" has been changed to make it clear that the government can only recover health care costs resulting from a breach of duty owed by tobacco companies to persons in British Columbia. This narrowing of the definition is needed to avoid an argument that the act is extraterritorial.
Our government remains firm in its resolve to seek compensation for tobacco-related health care costs, to expose the misconduct of the tobacco industry and to deter future misconduct. Tobacco addiction is one of the greatest threats facing young people today. B.C. has been a world leader in its effort to protect children from tobacco, and we intend to continue to do so.
[ Page 16315 ]
The legislation is an integral part of the province's broad tobacco strategy, a strategy that has earned B.C. worldwide recognition for its efforts in protecting children from this deadly addiction. Over the past several years B.C. has embarked on an aggressive public awareness campaign to inform young people about the health hazards of smoking -- whether it's through hard-hitting TV ads, magazines or school resources -- that has helped to give British Columbia one of the lowest rates of smoking in the entire country. I think that's something that we can all be proud of.
[1705]
Right here in Victoria we have a school, Stelly's Secondary School, that through an aggressive action targeted at young people has seen the reduction in the rate of smoking among school children from 28 percent of the school-age population down to 7 percent of the school-age population. That is a tremendous achievement, and it's something that I think we need to look at being emulated right across the province.
We have increased our enforcement of tobacco sales to reduce the opportunity for young people to purchase tobacco products, and we've seen the number of retailers willing to sell cigarettes to youth steadily decline. We've introduced legislation to force the tobacco industry to disclose the ingredients and additives in cigarettes. And finally, we're committed to continuing our legal action to hold the tobacco industry accountable for the damage that it's product inflicts on the health of thousands of British Columbians.
You know, it's sometimes an easy argument that's dismissed. But the simple fact is that the tobacco companies have to get new tobacco users to stay in business and to continue. We know that people who become addicted to tobacco die at a much greater rate than the general population. And as these smokers and tobacco users die, the pool of people the tobacco companies have to peddle their product to is shrinking.
We know that they deliberately target children. We know that they deliberately target young people. We know that their advertising is aimed at these groups. We know that they prey on the fact that young people are vulnerable to peer pressure. Yet they insist, time after time, that they didn't do this -- that that's not their way of doing business. Well, the evidence is clear: it is.
We must continue to be aggressive in our efforts. We must continue to be vigilant and to work to ensure that tobacco companies know that they will not get an easy ride, that they do not have free reign, that this province is serious in taking them on and that we'll continue to do so. We're going to build on our reputation as a world leader, and we're going to continue to pursue our goal of having the lowest smoking rate of any province in the country. Our strategy is very much geared towards that.
What's encouraging is that now we're seeing other provinces get on board and following British Columbia's approach. The province of Newfoundland has decided to follow B.C.'s lead and has recently announced its intent to launch its own lawsuit, using British Columbia's legislation as a model. So this legislation that we are dealing with today will be a model for other provinces, and Newfoundland is the latest province to indicate that they will be following our lead. They have recently adopted an aggressive tobacco-use strategy. I don't think it's a coincidence that Newfoundland and British Columbia, the two provinces in Canada with the highest taxes on cigarettes, also have the lowest rates of cigarette consumption.
This piece of legislation is very much a key weapon in our campaign to reduce the rate of smoking amongst the population in general but also, in particular, to ensure that the message continues that we want to ensure that young people don't smoke -- don't take up tobacco addiction -- that we have the lowest tobacco-usage rate of any province in Canada, and that we will work cooperatively with other provinces and with the federal government in pursuing health care costs recovery litigation.
We hope that other provinces and territorial governments will join us and stand united against the tobacco industry. We've seen how legal actions in other jurisdictions have changed the way the tobacco industry operates, and we want to change how that industry operates in this province as well.
This legislation will allow the province to continue its legal action without delay. That will have important consequences for the lives of British Columbians today and the lives of future generations. This is an important piece of legislation, which I hope gets the support of the entire House. I look forward to hearing the comments from other members of the chamber and ask them to support this legislation without reservation.
[1710]
C. Hansen: The official opposition is not going to oppose this legislation. But at the same time I don't believe that this is a particular piece of legislation that the government should be proud of.
I want to take a quick look at what this legislation is all about. But before I do that, I want to set out what our approach to the government's tobacco strategy has been and say that we have consistently, over these last four years that the tobacco strategy has been brought before this particular parliament, looked at each and every piece of legislation with the question: "Does this legislation help, or potentially help, reduce the number of smokers in British Columbia, to reduce tobacco use in British Columbia?"
In each case where we see that there is at least some possibility that the government's tobacco strategy initiatives will have that outcome, we have supported the government in terms of that legislation. If you go back and look at the pieces of legislation that we opposed in the tobacco strategy, they were aspects of legislation -- or legislation itself -- that, really, we did not believe would have that desired effect and that we saw as some other agenda. But generally speaking, we have been supportive of the strategy where it has had the clear objective of reducing tobacco use in British Columbia, because that is one thing that I think every member of this House wants to see happen.
We see some quite alarming statistics in terms of
I would say that this particular piece of legislation is not about reducing the number of tobacco users in British Columbia. This piece of legislation is all about several things that
[ Page 16316 ]
happened in the United States, in various states. Probably the most notable is a decision in Minnesota, where the tobacco industry agreed to an out-of-court settlement with big tobacco to the tune of $6.8 billion to be spread over 25 years. That's what this legislation is all about. This legislation is all about a desire by this government to get a chunk of cash from big tobacco.
They first set down this road in 1997, when they brought in the original piece of legislation that was to change the rules in British Columbia to allow the government the ability to go after the tobacco companies with this lawsuit. A year later, before they even proclaimed that legislation, they realized that there were some problems with that bill, and they brought in a major rewrite. They brought in the Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, and it retitled it; it changed most of the legislation. Then last year we saw yet another amendment come in. That was the third amendment -- one each and every year. It was brought in, in the context of a miscellaneous statute amendment act. Again, what it was doing was, each time, changing the rules to favour the government's position in taking this court case forward.
So we've had these four tries. This is now the fourth attempt that the government has made of rewriting the rules to favour the objective that they're trying to achieve. If you think about that in the broad context, that's really quite repugnant, in the sense that government would take that kind of action. What it is also is an admission of failure on the part of this government that they haven't been able to get it right each time.
[1715]
I want to go back and just quote a couple of things that took place in this House as those various pieces of legislation went through. I go back to 1998 when the first major amendment to the legislation was brought in. The then Minister of Health said these words:
And they were very confident in 1998 that they were making the changes necessary to level the playing field."These changes are essential for the purposes of ensuring that the claim against the tobacco industry will be based on a full and fair examination of all the relevant facts. When this legislation was brought in last year, we made it clear that this litigation was to be fought on a level playing field. We remain committed to this principle, and we're satisfied that these changes will ensure that a hearing of the merits of this case will fully disclose the extent of responsibility of the tobacco industry for the suffering of so many smokers in this province."
Then last year we brought amendments in again to try to level the playing field. At that time, when it was going through in that miscellaneous statutes amendment act, I put a question to the then Attorney General. This is what I asked him: "I'd like to ask the minister: given that every year this chamber is presented with a wholesale rewrite of this bill in order to get around the constitutional issues that this government is faced with, can the minister tell us whether or not we're going to be facing yet more amendments to this legislation next year in order to facilitate the government's court case?"
The Attorney General, who is now the Premier of the province, responded to me in these words: "I don't want to engage in the kind of debate the hon. member at the other end is beginning." Well, you know, we should have engaged in that debate, because what is clear now is that the amendments that were brought in last year did not facilitate what the government was trying to do in terms of positioning itself to go after big tobacco. It is with some skepticism that we stand here looking at this legislation and a decision not to oppose it. At the same time I am not convinced today, nor are others who are watching this scene unfold convinced, that in fact the government truly knows what it's doing at this stage. There are those who are the cynics who may be right in the opinion that government is throwing good money after bad when it is trying to pursue the motherlode of this lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
Part of it is that if there is compensation forthcoming from the tobacco industry in terms of health costs, then British Columbia should certainly go after that, as other jurisdictions in North America have gone after it. I guess we stand here watching a government that is desperately trying to rewrite and amend legislation year after year in order to facilitate that court case. While we will not stand in the way of the government proceeding, it is not with a great deal of confidence.
G. Plant: One of the fundamental rules or principles in a democratic society, one of the small handful of truly fundamental principles of life in a democratic society, is the principle of equality. Oftentimes the idea of equality is expressed in terms of equality before the law. This phrase, which is much hallowed by usage and by history, is intended to connote the idea that all citizens in a democratic society come before the law as equals -- that we are all treated equally before the law. Whether we be school children sitting in the visitor's gallery of this Legislative Assembly, citizens going about their daily business on the streets and in the neighbourhoods of British Columbia, or corporations doing business according to and subject to the laws of British Columbia, we are all, I think, entitled to the expectation that governments will respect the basic and fundamental principle of equality.
Included in that expectation is the expectation that the rules under which civil litigation or criminal litigation are conducted will be the same whatever the class of litigants. Indeed, we have rules of court in British Columbia that apply equally to the litigants of British Columbia. Included in that expectation of equality, which is fundamental to our sense of what it means to live in a truly free and democratic society, is the expectation that the laws themselves, the rules of evidence, the rules that constitute the causes of action that allow citizens to sue one another, are themselves respectful of the basic idea of equality, so that all of us as citizens -- school child, housewife, worker, corporation -- are treated equally.
This bill and its three predecessors violate that basic principle. They do so by creating a distinct class of rules, a distinct class of laws for one particular class of citizens -- tobacco companies. They change the rules under which tobacco companies as one class of citizens, albeit corporate citizens in this society, have to conduct their business. They changed the rules according to which those companies can be expected to be subject to litigation by government or by whomever.
[1720]
I think it goes without saying that the idea of equality is neither universal nor inflexible. In fact, our constitution contains within it the express recognition of the possibility that the basic idea of formal equality can be compromised or altered in particular contexts, usually when government is legislating to enhance the rights of particular classes of citizens rather than to erode them or take away from them. Nonethe-
[ Page 16317 ]
less, the ideal of equality to which I've referred is not, and never really has been, perfectly realized in the laws of any jurisdiction.
I refer to that ideal, or that idea and that ideal, because I think it is important to recognize that it is being compromised by the government in this legislation. It's being compromised in ways that are important. It is, I think, easy to forget that compromise or to downplay it, because in this case the rules are being changed at the expense of a particular class of corporate citizens, who carry on a business that has all of the effects that the Minister of Health referred to in his opening remarks concerning this legislation. That is, tobacco companies are, perhaps rightly, pariahs in our society, and therefore -- so goes the argument -- perhaps there is less of a burden on us in this Legislature to respect their rights as corporate citizens, to respect any sense that they may have some entitlement to being treated as equal citizens in our civil society. It's easy to compromise those rights, because we say: "Tobacco companies are bad people. And why should we as legislators be interested in treating bad people fairly?"
I am less concerned with whether or not this bill treats tobacco companies fairly than I am with the precedent that it sets or the principle that it represents: that as and when it suits the convenience of government in particular cases, it is quite appropriate to abrogate or ignore or derogate from the idea of equality. It suits the political purposes of a particular government at a particular moment in history to choose to identify one class of its citizens as evil or bad and thereby take from them some of the expectations around being treated equally that are generally available to all of us in society.
I can imagine, for example, that a subsequent Legislature of this parliament might be convened, and members of that Legislature could be presented with a bill -- let's call it, for the sake of example, the "NDP Debt Damages Recovery Act." Let's imagine a bill in which the primary focus was to create a cause of action on the part of the government against each of the members of the Legislature who served as NDP members between 1991 and the year 2000 -- actionable without proof of specific damage -- to make them personally liable and responsible as members for their proportionate share of the increase in the public debt which occurred during their term of office.
[1725]
It would, I point out, be a relatively modest change in the basic principles of the law of British Columbia. It would in fact be the kind of law which most scholars would recognize was very little different from the basic principles according to which this act operates. We change a rule or two about the causes of action. We change slightly a rule or two about evidence. We ensure that we deny the members any reasonable opportunity to defend themselves by conclusively deeming certain types of damage to have occurred. And, of course, we enact the bill retroactively, because that may be necessary to achieve this purpose.
When we did that, the difficulty the members opposite would face, if they were still here, is: on what principled basis would they oppose that legislation? No aspect of that legislation -- its retroactivity, its conclusively deeming certain things to be true, its attempt to preclude the law from suit, its attempt to change the rules of evidence and process and the rules of liability just ever so slightly in respect of one class of litigants or prospective defendants
That's what happens when you take that basic principle of equality that I talked about and rewrite it. You rewrote it in a context where it looks today like it's a good context to do it, because the people you are attacking appear to be bad citizens, bad members of our community and people who aren't deserving of equal rights or respect.
But who knows? Circumstances may change; times may change; attitudes may change. And these people over here, who have consistently pursued that particular approach are, I think, going to have a hard time when the next exception to the basic principle comes along. And it may or may not be an NDP debt damages recovery act. I use it only as an illustration of the problem that we're facing here, which is, I think, ignored by this government.
What is the precedent we set when we change the rules for one particular class of citizens in the way that this bill changes the rules for this particular class of citizens? Well, the government's a long way down this path. They've committed a significant amount of resources. As yet we don't know what the amount is, but no doubt it is significant. They've committed a significant amount of resources to this cause. I think that in this particular case there may well be a justifiable argument to change the rules. I'm not certain. I have the same attitude that my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has. I am a skeptic here. We are not going to stand in the way of the government's attempt to continue this particular element of its tobacco strategy, but I did not think that the moment should pass without at least bringing to the attention of the House some of my concerns about what this bill represents.
By way of final comment, I think that it would be, in my view, irresponsible of this government to continue to defend this particular limb of its strategy without at least being willing to admit or to tell the citizens of British Columbia how much it is costing.
I must, by way of forewarning perhaps -- to indicate a question that will probably get raised in committee stage debate -- say that I find absolutely no basis upon which the government could assert any form of solicitor-client privilege in respect of the costs that the government itself is incurring for itself as client in respect of this litigation. The government is spending the tax dollars of British Columbia not to protect the reputation of an individual civil servant or a member of the Crown who is being dragged through some litigation. Rather, the government is incurring legal fees to pursue a particular public policy purpose. And it seems to me that it would be inconceivable for this government to refuse to answer the question of how much this public policy initiative is costing British Columbians and particularly unfortunate if the government were to seek to refuse to answer that question on the basis that it, as client, asserts solicitor-client privilege.
[1730]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
So when we come to the committee stage debate of this bill, I will be asking the minister -- as a condition, perhaps, of indicating whether or not I'm prepared to support a particular section of the bill -- to tell us in this House and all British
[ Page 16318 ]
Columbians what this initiative is costing. I look forward to the minister's full, frank and complete answer to that question. That concludes my remarks.
Hon. A. Petter: I just want to add a few comments to the remarks of the Minister of Health in support of this legislation. As the Minister of Health indicated, there are strong reasons why this government is re-enacting this legislation and is not backing down from our commitment to pursue action against the large tobacco companies in respect of damages caused to British Columbians and the cost of those damages to us all as a result of those tobacco companies.
We're determined to proceed with legislation not only to recover health care costs but also to change the way the tobacco industry does business in this province and, in particular, to use this litigation as an opportunity to hold the tobacco industry accountable for the damages that they have caused and to make the public aware of those damages, which is indeed critical to a public understanding of the damage of tobacco and how we need to educate people and work together to curb the use of tobacco, particularly amongst young people.
I was very moved by the opportunity that I had, along with Jeffery Wigand, who was here a few weeks ago, to go to a local school, Stelly's Secondary School in Central Saanich -- a school where young people have taken huge efforts to try to educate themselves and each other about the dangers of tobacco -- and talk to those young people about the importance of curbing tobacco use and to listen to them and listen with them to the message that Dr. Wigand brought in respect of the tobacco industry's practices and the need to hold them accountable.
One of the major reasons that young people at Stelly's School have been successful in their commitment to try to reduce tobacco use is because they have developed, within that school, peer group pressure in favour of not smoking. They have raised their collective awareness about the practices of the tobacco industry and about the damage the tobacco industry has caused not only to people within this province but generally and the potential damage the tobacco industry can cause through the purveying of their products to young people. That's part of the critical understanding that has enabled the students in that school to do a very impressive job of educating themselves and each other and bringing down tobacco use in that school very dramatically.
Listening to those students talk about that experience and listening to Dr. Wigand talk about his experience made it very clear to me that this kind of litigation is critical in raising public awareness, in holding tobacco companies accountable and in pursuing our collective goal of ensuring that where a company promotes a product, withholds information about that product and targets that product at young people knowing that has huge health care implications and can cause large damage to young people, it is critical that we do find ways to hold that company accountable. This is not just for the sake of pursuing damages but for the sake of drawing attention to those damages on the part of the public and educating people about the dangers of tobacco use.
I guess that brings me to one of two comments made by members of the opposition that I want to just refer to before closing. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked about the support of the opposition for measures to reduce tobacco use in B.C. but questioned whether this legislation would assist in reducing tobacco use. I want to assure him that this legislation will indeed have that impact. That's why Dr. Wigand
[1735]
Secondly, the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about equality before the law. I don't want to get into a long and protracted debate. I'd simply say that this legislation does take account of the fact that in this kind of litigation there are extraordinary, unique difficulties in bringing evidence forward and demonstrating that in fact the damages that have been alleged have been caused. What this legislation will allow the government to do is ensure that the level playing field the member referred to is there and that a court can reach a fair determination based upon evidence that is led under this legislation.
In that respect, this legislation is modelled very closely upon the direction that was received following litigation that occurred previously, which the member's aware of. I think the member should take some comfort from that fact. But I take comfort from this fact. I know that despite the member's rhetorical flourishes about equality before the law, he cannot believe that this legislation represents an abridgment of the principle of equality before the law. He would not vote for this legislation if he truly believed that. He sees this legislation for what it is, and that is a necessary instrument to enable these issues to come before the courts to be fairly adjudicated and for us to be able to hold companies responsible for damages where those damages were caused by their actions.
If it is not the case that the member agrees that this legislation is designed to do that, if he does not agree that it's consistent with equality before the law, then surely he would not compromise his principles and vote for it. So I assume that the member, despite his rhetorical flourishes to the contrary and the positive signals he was trying to send -- I don't know to whom; hopefully not to the tobacco companies -- will vote for this legislation. By doing so, I'm sure he will demonstrate what I have said -- that, in truth, he does not believe this legislation is any violation of fundamental principles, for he surely would not vote for legislation that represented such a violation.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In closing debate, I'd like to address some of the remarks from my colleague from Richmond-Steveston and answer one of his questions, because I think it is important, on the record. He raised the issue around the fees in terms of what it is costing the government. I have already stated in the estimates debate that when this action is over, I'll be more than happy to see that those costs are in fact released. So that will be done. I think it's important.
What's also, I think, important to get into the record is that this is not about money. This is about health care. This is about the costs of dealing with the health issues related to people who have been lied to, manipulated and used by tobacco companies. I find it interesting that the debate from the members started somewhat around words around equality and how citizens need equality.
[ Page 16319 ]
He stated that tobacco companies are citizens. Tobacco companies are not citizens. People who die from lung cancer are citizens. People who die from emphysema are citizens. People who have their lives cut short by tobacco use are citizens. Tobacco companies have manipulated and lied to those people over the years, deliberately, about the nature of the product and about the nature of the usage of their products in such a way as to misinform people and to lead people to believe that they could use their product safely. We know that is not the case.
Equality means equality of access. It means in a court of law that you have equal access to the law and your ability to make a case. We have watched how a well-financed industry, with literally billions of dollars at its disposal to defend itself, can take on an individual. Sounds like
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member may think that tobacco addiction is humorous or worth heckling, but it's not. It's serious. Talk to someone who has died from lung cancer, who has lost a relative to lung cancer.
What we're looking at is equality of access. That's what this legislation does. It recognizes that the individual needs a level playing field, that the legislation has been brought forward on the basis of what is legal and tried and tested in the courts. Our legislation previously was found by the courts, with one exception, to have underlying sound principles that were legal and fair and could proceed.
We have addressed that one issue that was of concern to the courts. That protects the equality that the tobacco companies enjoy. It also ensures equality for the hundreds of thousands of people in British Columbia who have an axe to grind with big tobacco. It ensures that their rights will be heard. It ensures that their rights will be listened to. It ensures that their rights will not be trampled because somebody else has billions of dollars at their disposal, whereas they don't. It ensures that the truth will be told.
[1740]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please. You were listened to very quietly yourselves. If you could, listen to the minister wrap up, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It ensures that big tobacco will not dominate in the way that money rules. What this legislation does is ensure a level playing field. That's what the public wants. That's what they expect, and that's what this legislation delivers.
I move second reading.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
[1745]
Second reading of Bill 15 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 15, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: By agreement I want to call second reading of Bill 16.
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill now be read a second time. I'll be very brief in my comments, because the bill really is trying to correct and remedy some difficulties in the act that was introduced last year.
The Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000, as I say, amends errors in the legal descriptions of schedule 2 of the Electoral Districts Act. The amendments will provide that the legal descriptions correspond to the boundary descriptions in the Electoral Boundaries Commission report of June 3, 1999. The Electoral Boundaries Commission report recommended extensive revisions to establish new districts for the province. The commission act required that the government introduce a bill to establish the electoral districts in the same session as the report was tabled. That created considerable time pressure. As a result, the act underwent extensive revision last year to establish new electoral districts in the province.
Because of that time pressure and the very short time frame, there were some errors made in legal descriptions to electoral boundaries in schedule 2 of the act. As a result, there are numerous amendments to those legal descriptions, which are now corrected in this legislation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Members, it's very difficult to hear in the chamber. Could members carry on their conversations outside the chamber, please.
Hon. A. Petter: Some of the amendments are simply to correct spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, enhancing the language used to describe the boundaries. The remaining amendments simply ensure that descriptions adhere to the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission report. In every sense, this act is there to give effect to the previous act and make sure that it is carried out as members intended when we voted for that act last year. This bill ensures that the errors in schedule 2 are corrected, and I move second reading.
[1750]
G. Plant: We've spent most of the afternoon tidying up after the government's messes. I think all of the bills that have come before the House today have been bills in which much of what has been accomplished has been fixing or amending or changing or correcting the mistakes made by the government in previous attempts to enact the legislation that has been amended this afternoon. That was certainly true of the last bill we debated, and I think it was true of the bills before that. When I look at the legislative calendar ahead of us, it's true of much of what lies ahead of us.
That seems to be pretty much the primary purpose of this profoundly important spring session of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the year 2000: to attempt to tidy up the government's messes from years past. No doubt, if we have the great good fortune to be here a year from now, we'll get that chance -- if the current government is still the
[ Page 16320 ]
government -- to tidy up whatever messes they're making in the legislation they're enacting or bringing forward this spring.
A particularly unfortunate example of having to tidy up from the messes of the legislation past is the bill that's now before us, Bill 16, the Electoral Districts Amendment Act. I think it's important to spend at least a minute or two talking about how we got to this point. The reason we're here now tidying up the mess that the government left last year is largely because this government cared so little about complying with the statutory timetable that was established under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act at the outset of the current parliament that it created a situation where the Electoral Boundaries Commission was forced to work, I think, later than it should have. That meant that when the commission delivered its second report last June, the government did not give itself enough time -- and didn't have enough time, frankly -- to ensure that the electoral districts that were established as the new electoral districts of British Columbia by the commission in its report were in fact properly described in the Electoral Districts Act that we enacted last spring.
The history of electoral districts in British Columbia is a colourful and checkered one. It includes many instances in the past of gerrymandering and many instances of situations and occasions where the citizens had good reason to be doubtful of the integrity of the work being done by government to revise the electoral boundaries as circumstances and population growth required. All of that was supposed to be fixed in 1989 when the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act was brought into force. That act established a process that was to create an independent commission that was to be given a mandate to review, reconsider and rewrite, if necessary, the electoral boundaries of the province.
The important feature of that act for present purposes is the timetable -- the schedule, the formula -- for determining when the commission was to be appointed. The time of appointment of the commission was established in, I believe, section 5 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. It really ought to have been appointed sometime during the summer of 1996, which was during the substantive part of the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament. It wasn't done; that commission wasn't appointed. Instead, what happened was that that session, the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament, came to an end without the commission having been appointed, a circumstance which was brought to the attention of the government before the session came to an end, in circumstances where the government had plenty of opportunity to do what it needed to do to ensure that a commission was appointed in a timely way. But the government failed to act. The government failed to do what it had to do to ensure that the commission was appointed, and so the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament came to an end without the commission having been appointed.
[1755]
In fact, we did not get a commission appointed until December of 1997, almost a year and a half after the election. We did not get a commission appointed until the government had brought in legislation amending the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to cure the problem it had created by allowing the formula to be breached by failing to comply with its legal obligations to appoint a commission. So in the legislative session in the summer of 1997, we had to consider and vote on amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to permit a commission to be appointed and to undertake its work. Those amendments were passed, and the commission was appointed by order-in-council dated December 4, 1997. That, as I say, is probably a year or a year and a half after it should have gotten under way. I think the history that follows from that is of significance to the situation that we now find ourselves in.
Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate -- subject, of course, to whether that is in fact what's happening.
G. Plant moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I would call private members' statements.
HELPING FAMILIES AFTER BREAKUP
J. van Dongen: After five years as an MLA, it is clear to me that family breakup is a significant and traumatic event in the lives not only of children but also of their parents. I want to identify a number of concerns and then some suggestions for ways that the state can help families after a separation or divorce.
First of all, it should go without saying that it is good public policy to foster stable and long-term family relationships. Legislation and government services that support continuity and longevity in family units are in everyone's best interests.
I want to recognize that family breakup sometimes happens. Where parents can separate amicably and constructively, it is clearly better for them and their children. However, in a number of cases there is conflict. There may be anger, abuse, addictions, financial pressure, an inability to communicate and all manner of other negative emotions and actions.
For many years we saw that maintenance orders were not honoured, and this created tremendous hardship on custodial parents. In recent years the FMEP has provided better results in terms of achieving timely payment of maintenance orders, including up to a 75 percent collection rate, as the Attorney General said recently.
However, there is something of a price to this success. There are sincere, responsible non-custodial parents who feel they have been brutalized by the FMEP process, especially when they face loss of employment, reduction in income, etc. They feel marginalized and alienated, especially when aggressive collection is combined with a lack of access to visit their children.
Other initiatives and directions by the government in recent years that I support are the move towards more mediation, mainly through family court counsellors, and also mandatory attendance at parenting-after-separation programs. Legal aid is less readily available than in the past, and in my view, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I have supported any efforts to bring more accountability to this program.
[ Page 16321 ]
[1800]
I now want to provide some comments on areas of concern which, in my view, have serious implications for broken families and therefore warrant our attention as legislators. First, the adversarial nature of the court process to adjudicate family breakups is very damaging to children and adult family members alike. There are still a great number of maintenance, custody and access orders and numerous subsequent variations going to court for settlement. I have personally read files where the negative impact of parents fighting each other in court had a very negative connotation for children. I also do not believe that it is right or helpful for one person to have a lawyer and the other not to have one.
Secondly, access orders are not enforced or enforceable in any practical way in our current system. This leaves non-custodial parents helpless if the custodial parent chooses to not cooperate with allowing access, even when there is a court order in place. It has also been suggested to me that it would be more appropriate and positive to talk about parenting time rather than access -- a suggestion which I agree with.
Third, if a custodial parent faces a bona fide job loss or temporary wage loss or any reduction in income, the ability to vary a maintenance order is time-consuming, expensive and stressful. The conventional view, which appears to be quite entrenched, is that any non-custodial parent seeking a variation in their maintenance order is doing so out of self-interest with no sense of responsibility to their children. In my observation, this assumption is not valid and is destructive to the emotional and psychological health of the people involved. The difficulties faced by non-custodial parents in regard to variation of orders is exacerbated by the fact that, in many cases, the custodial parent enjoys the services of a legal aid lawyer while the non-custodial parent does not. This is a serious imbalance for a non-custodial parent to face in a courtroom. There has been better management of legal aid funding. However, I believe that the public's financial resources can be channelled and redirected in a more positive direction.
Fourth, there is a perception that non-custodial parents do not need support. In my experience, the stress faced by non-custodial parents in a family breakup is seriously underestimated and misunderstood. Many committed fathers feel that they are currently not recognized in government social policy-making.
Fifth, the parenting-after-separation program is a good start but needs to be expanded. With its current three-hour format, it has limited benefits to the parents involved. There is sometimes a continuing need for training and practical advice for some period of time after the breakup.
Before a child in a broken family reaches 18 years of age or is no longer a dependent student, there may well be a number of court proceedings held. The impact of these proceedings, possibly extending 18 years or more, has not been fully considered in our current system and particularly with reference to the adversarial nature of the courts, the cost of the courts and the inefficiency of the courts in adjudicating disputes.
Some suggestions for improvement, hon. Speaker. First, take the ongoing management out of the courts. Any new model or enhancements to the current approach should include the virtual elimination of the need to go to court to adjust maintenance or access orders once the initial decision on these matters is made. I believe that families and especially children would be better served if properly trained mediator-arbitrators dealt directly with each of the parents under a comprehensive parenting plan such as the one I will mention in a moment.
In order to deal with the ongoing evolving needs of a broken family, it would be useful to adopt a case management approach to each situation.
I'm going to turn it over now to the respondee, and then I will follow up with some further comments on further suggestions for improvement.
[1805]
E. Walsh: First off, I'd like to thank the member opposite for raising a very difficult and what I know is a very personal issue for many people not only in this province but worldwide.
The breakup of a family is probably the most difficult and traumatic event that most of those involved will ever experience in the course of their lives. While we never hope that a family will break up, we have grown as a society to accept that divorce and separation, in fact, are a fact of life.
We as a government have to find ways to accommodate the eventuality and support the children, the women and the men -- the family as a whole -- that are going to be in transition. I am pleased that the member for Abbotsford has taken an interest, and such an interest, in this very important issue, because I too share that very keen interest in this issue.
It has been shown that the adversarial nature of traditional court divorce and custody proceedings in cases
In 1998 our government initiated the parenting-after-separation program, and in 1997 the new federal child support guidelines came into effect. This in fact changed the way that child support payments are determined under the Divorce Act and we, in kind, responded to these changes in 1998 with the Family Relations Act and the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, which we just introduced. We also put into place family justice centres. These measures are all a good beginning for a problem and issues that everybody is affected by in one way or another. But there is so much more that needs to be done, and this truly is a challenge.
One of the issues and one of the challenges is actually listening to children. When I say listening to children, it's listening to what they themselves have to say, because they are very much a big part of that situation and those problems that are ongoing in their families. It's their life too. It's their rights, too, that we're talking about.
The children aren't the one that have asked their parents to split up. They're not the ones that have asked their parents to divorce, yet they're a part of the separation and the divorce that is the final outcome. In fact, they become the victims in the relationship.
How many times do we hear of disruptions in children's lives? How many times do we hear of the distress that separa-
[ Page 16322 ]
tion and divorce in fact produce? They have many worries and many fears, wondering if maybe they're the cause of this. Well, they need to express their views, and they need to be heard.
The language that we use today in present-day legislation and present-day laws needs to be conflict-reduced. For example, in many jurisdictions, custody and access now are being referred to as joint parental responsibility, shared parenting or shared parental responsibility. What's wrong with the term "shared parenting"? That's what this is really all about.
The estrangement of children and parents has to be discouraged. New language has to be implemented, and it has to be implemented in such a way that it fosters a cooperative and child-focused post-separation arrangement. This has to be integrated into our legislation today.
We need to recognize the impact of divorce on children, the impact on non-custodial parents of which the member opposite has spoken about, and the parental alienation and the emotional cost and the monetary costs -- costs that should benefit the children and should benefit the families, not costs that the lawyers and the courts in fact benefit from.
Finally, I would encourage our provincial government to pursue the federal government to implement the recommendations that are included in their December 1998 report, "For the Sake of the Children."
I'd like to thank the member opposite for bringing this very important issue not only to this House but also to the province as a whole.
The Speaker: To conclude the reply, the hon. member for Abbotsford.
[1810]
J. van Dongen: I would also like to acknowledge the high level of interest that the member for Kootenay has. I look forward to working with her further on this issue.
The province could consider a case-management model such as a comprehensive parenting plan, which is employed in Washington State and includes a written agreement on the following issues involved in separations: (1) the division of assets; (2) child support; (3) custody and access, or to put it in a better way, the division of parenting time and responsibility; (4) spousal support; and (5) a dispute resolution mechanism which enables modifications to be negotiated and documented without having to go back into court again.
In Washington State the final parenting plan does have to be tabled and ratified by a court even when it is negotiated by the parties. The dispute settlement mechanism involves the delegation of authority to a named family lawyer who acts as a mediator-arbitrator for any disputes or variation requests which come up in the future.
The merit of this approach is that this mediator-arbitrator becomes familiar with the parties and the situation over time and will become better able to adjudicate requests for modifications as time goes by. With the authority of the court, this trained family lawyer becomes the case manager of this broken family's situation. I believe this approach would result in better, quicker and less costly decisions.
The province could consider some sharing of the cost, depending of the capability of the clients. In Washington, the cost of paying the lawyer to adjudicate a modification is shared by the two parties as set out in the parenting plan. Cost sharing of the mediator-arbitrator makes both parents more responsible. If they insist on being destructive or uncooperative, they will pay for it both in costs and in the outcome of the process.
I think it's important to enhance and strengthen the parenting education program which has been started. This education could be incorporated into parenting plans as required. We also need to start a program of enforcing access orders. Ideally, this can and should be done in the context of the parenting plan case-management model discussed earlier.
It's worth noting that on April 14, 2000, the Alberta government amended their family law statutes to improve enforcement of access orders and to protect the right of a child and the non-custodial parent to spend time together. The new legislation includes a number of enforcement tools, but I note that it also includes provisions for mandatory counselling, education and mediation.
Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity. I look forward to working further on this issue.
COMMUNITY SPIRIT
P. Calendino: I rise today to speak on a subject that is likely commonplace in every corner of this beautiful province of ours, which we refer to as community spirit.
Today I really want to emphasize how the concept of community spirit is particularly evident in my little corner of the world, which is North Burnaby, and more specifically the northwest sector of North Burnaby in the area known as the Heights, which stretches from Boundary Road to Capitol Hill on both sides of Hastings Street.
The Heights neighbourhood happens to be inhabited by a fabulous and dedicated bunch of people who personify volunteerism and community spirit. Last Saturday, along Hastings Street in North Burnaby, we celebrated what is probably the greatest neighbourhood event in greater Vancouver: Hats Off Day.
Today, fittingly, I want to symbolically take my hat off and recognize and congratulate all the individuals and organizations who, day in and day out, work very hard to make North Burnaby the most pleasant, the most livable and the most attractive community in greater Vancouver. I'm honoured to live in North Burnaby, to have my office there and to represent these people. They are just phenomenal.
For over a decade now, cooperation between volunteers, neighbourhood associations, the merchants association, local governments and at times myself or my predecessor have produced some great results, and I'd like to tell the House about some of them.
I have alluded to the Hats Off Day celebrations along Hastings. This is a major event put on by the Burnaby Heights Merchants Association, the Heights Neighbourhood Association, the Gilmore Community School Association and the neighbourhood corporate participant, Chevron Canada who, more than usual of late, has been in the doghouse because of some unpalatable events that happened at the refinery. But they still take part in many things.
[1815]
[ Page 16323 ]
I'll come back to the Hats Off Day, but at this time I want to tell the House about a number of other projects that have materialized in North Burnaby, thanks to the amazing collaboration of all the groups that I mentioned.
The first one is a community garden on Pender Street, which is the fruit of relentless lobbying and perseverance by Ms. Diana Hall, an active member of the Heights Neighbourhood Association. This garden is really a pleasure to see. It's so well kept that it has become a main attraction for local residents and for tourists. It contains 43 individual plots where citizens plant flowers, vegetables and herbs as well as many other kinds of plants, as one can expect.
The garden also has paths for people to wander through and three benches in an arbour in the middle for adults and children to sit on, see vegetables grow and enjoy the scent of a great variety of flowers. The garden brings people together to talk about common interests in a relaxed setting, and it is a unique addition to the neighbourhood. Credit goes to volunteers like the city of Burnaby, which provided the land; Chevron, which provided machinery; Robertson Hardware, which provided tools and seeds; and the Heights Neighbourhood Association, which provided the ideas and the plan as well as the labouring hands. Their cooperation produced something really special.
Gardening is not the only thing in Burnaby. We also encourage people to walk along the Heights area. I am pleased to say that this has now become easier with the completion of the Trans Canada Trail. The North Burnaby section was completed on April 14 and is now in full use. The full extent of the trail runs for 11 kilometres through Burnaby from Montrose Park to Burnaby Mountain, and it will be officially opened on July 1. The trail connects the community and citizens and is due to the hard work and planning of the Heights Trail Partnership, the Heights Neighbourhood Association, Simon Fraser University, Chevron and the city of Burnaby as well as the provincial government.
The efforts to make North Burnaby more beautiful and a better place to live are not confined solely to parks and pathways. The Burnaby Art Council and the Heights Merchants Association have introduced a great event that also satisfies the artistic and intellectual needs of local residents. Last year a month-long event called Artwalk was started. This event has enjoyed considerable success and is being looked at by many other neighbouring communities.
In this Artwalk event, local artists display their work in local businesses. These businesses are part of a self-directed walking tour that people take to see the talent and creativity on display. At each stop on the tour, the people can get a stamp for their art passport, and at the end they can enter their passport in a draw to win one of the works of art on display. This is really a win-win situation for all involved. The artists get recognition, the merchants bring new people into their stores, and the program builds connections between the two groups and the community.
Another project that is underway in my riding at this time is one called Community Reflections -- again, a result of all the groups mentioned earlier. This is a B.C. Millennium project, again, conceptualized, as I said, by the four groups. It's funded mostly by the city of Burnaby and, in part, by a community spirit grant from the provincial government. This project is intended to revitalize the Heights Fountain Square on Hastings Street through landscaping, artwork and community involvement. Right now, Heights Fountain Square is an underutilized urban park. This project will change that by hiring a local artist to hold community art workshops, consulting with school students and turning the ideas into mosaic stepping stones representing the community. The project is a unique expression of community pride and a wonderful opportunity to put a little creative beauty in people's lives. The city of Burnaby will also be adding additional landscaping to the square, will be reducing the size of the fountain and will be adding paving stones and a children's spring toy.
I think I'm running out of time. I still have to talk about the event, Hats Off Day, which I will do later. For now, I will sit down and look forward to the comments of the hon. member for Delta South who, I'm sure will let us know of the good things that take place in her own constituency.
[1820]
V. Roddick: I would like to thank the member for Burnaby North for allowing community to enter this House. It's something every citizen belongs to, and yet communities across this province are struggling. By definition, community means a body of people living in one place, district or country having common religious, ethnic and professional traits. It was your extended family, your neighbours, your church, your school and your nearest village -- all working together as one, more or less.
In today's global society, these threads have worn dreadfully thin and in many cases have totally disintegrated. We need to look long and hard at how to reweave our community fabric. In my own constituency of Delta South, we are remarkably fortunate to have something relatively unique so close to the urban metropolis of Vancouver. We have fourth- and fifth-generation farming and fishing communities. In fact, the most beautiful farmhouse is located just off Highway 17 and the Tsawwassen turnoff. Here, Clifford Wright was born and died in the same house two years ago, at the age of 86.
We just celebrated our 104th May Day parade in Ladner. This is community at its best. We need to maintain and enhance this spirit. We need to bring our schools back into focus. They've been hung out to dry, so to speak. Our sports, in fact most of our extracurricular activities, should be rewoven back into the basic fabric of our school system.
The cadet corps, which is the starting point of our proud Canadian forces, would be an excellent idea to reincorporate into our school system. Community spirit does not have to be a narrow focus. Our world-renowned RCMP is part of our national community fabric. This traditional force, along with our army, navy and airforce, desperately requires attention and repair. I attended the annual review of Cadet 828 Hurricane Squadron in Tsawwassen last Sunday. This review was conducted voluntarily by an off-duty RCMP officer -- a real crowd-pleaser all round, true community spirit.
Another example of current community spirit is trying to find a way to allow our Delta police force to monitor local waters, which are a federal jurisdiction, during the long, hot summer weekends, using a volunteered local fish boat for patrol. There are many tangled threads here, as you can well imagine, but we are diligently trying to untangle and start weaving.
Community spirit is working together, regardless of background. Today's world tends to warp our community spirit. We all need to work hard to replace the woof and thereby produce a beautifully repaired community tapestry for the people of British Columbia.
[ Page 16324 ]
P. Calendino: I want to thank the member across for her intervention on this topic. It's good to hear of the great people and things that take place in her community, which we can all take pride in and recount with enthusiasm. She also raises important issues about what defines a community and what creates community spirit, and we should keep our minds on that.
Now I would like to tell the House about the great community event that has been getting bigger and better in my community ever since it started in 1989. Of course, I'm talking about Hats Off Day in North Burnaby. Mr. Speaker, on the first Saturday in June, the Heights Merchants Association and many non-profit groups in North Burnaby sponsor a parade and a day of celebration along Hastings. The day started out as a way for the merchants to thank their customers for their patronage and has grown into a wonderful community event. And just to show how it has grown, here are some facts.
[1825]
For the first five years the parade was held only on one-half of Hastings Street, from Willingdon to Boundary, with no barriers separating the fast-moving traffic from participants. The only separation was traffic cones that Gilmore School parents placed on the centre line as they moved along and as cars sped by in the opposite direction. Obviously safety was a concern. So finally, after some effort, in 1994 the RCMP and the Ministry of Highways agreed to close off the whole street for three hours from Willingdon to Boundary. And with that, Hastings Street took on an atmosphere of an outdoor fairground for three or four hours every Saturday in the first week of June.
It also allowed the parade to expand, and in 1998 I intervened and managed to convince the Ministry of Highways to extend the closure of this street until 2:30 p.m., giving merchants the opportunity to take full advantage of all the people that come to enjoy the day.
This year the Merchants Association in fact, with its expansion of membership, stretched all the way to Gamma Street, about four blocks east of Willingdon. So the closures went all the way there this year. And the parade had a record number of entries -- over 100. Among the entrants are two motorcycle drill teams, the Vancouver police and the Seattle police, clowns, non-profit groups, businesses, schools, ethnic cultural groups like the Chinese dragon dancers, girl guides and boy scouts, and many, many others.
On Saturday there were booths along Hastings with pony rides, hat-making, face-painting, games, demonstrations, barbecuing, beer gardens and much musical entertainment all along the length of the street. My colleagues said: "It sounds like fun." As a matter of fact, it was a lot of fun. All and all, there was fun and goodies for everybody. Parents and other adults could enjoy espressos and cappuccinos in the many cafés on the street
The Speaker: Sorry, member. Your time has expired.
P. Calendino: Oh, let me finish, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
P. Calendino: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on that.
The Speaker: For the third private member's statement I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
B. McKinnon: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction before I start.
Leave granted.
B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce to the House, from the Salvation Army, Maj. Gary Venables, director of community relations and development, and Corps Sgt. Maj. Tom Elwood, the government relations representative. Would the House please make them welcome.
THE CHARITY OF
THE SALVATION ARMY
B. McKinnon: I am pleased to stand and speak about the Salvation Army and the tremendous amount of work they do in this province and this country for those who are in need.
In 1887 four women in uniform took to the streets of Vancouver, shaking tambourines and singing the "Hallelujah Chorus." Soon they attracted a host of inspired followers. No one knew who these women were, but it didn't take long for everyone to note that the Salvation Army had arrived in Vancouver. In 1889 the Vancouver divisional headquarters opened, and the Salvation Army was here to stay. From that day the army has battled for the people of this province.
They helped the goldminers in the Klondike, children starving in the Great Depression and families left to cope when the world went to war. Anyone who was in need could count on the men and women in uniform to care. Brick by brick they built the foundations of today's social services. Their hands-on approach saw thousands of people through the hard times of the day.
In 1898 the doors opened to the first homeless shelter on Water Street, promising good meals and good beds for 25 cents. The first children's camp was founded in 1925 on 18 acres of waterfront near Langdale. In 1927 the army built Grace Hospital, which has been the birthplace of many Vancouverites. Through the Great Depression, the Salvation Army was there with food, clothing and shelter. Nothing was beyond their giving.
[1830]
"The level of poverty in British Columbia is intolerable and is a complex problem that can be overcome if we apply a holistic approach in meeting the needs of those afflicted with low levels of income and substandard living conditions." Those are the words of Envoy Gary Johnson of the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army is the largest volunteer army in the world. They come from all backgrounds and religious denominations, motivated to help their fellow man. They have a mission and a commitment of working with the marginalized, disadvantaged, addicted, homeless, unemployed, illiterate and others, for the purpose of lifting them up and encouraging them by providing a vision of hope in their lives.
[ Page 16325 ]
To accomplish this goal, society must understand the vicious cycle that those who are impoverished live in. Very seldom does the Salvation Army find people on welfare who do not want to improve themselves and find a job. These people find themselves wrapped up in this vicious cycle and do not know where to begin or how to solve the dilemma they are so deeply mired in.
Hon. Speaker, it isn't just those who live on welfare that are frustrated and unemployed. We have the working poor who have been displaced in our resource-based industries over the last four to six years. They are finding themselves in tough situations of retraining and are having a very difficult time trying to get back to the wage levels they and their families were used to.
Many of these citizens have lived in dysfunctional environments for so long that they believe it's normal to exist this way. No one wants to continue living in poverty, but too often they look for solutions in the liquor bottle, marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other substance abuse.
It is seldom that you find a person living on welfare who is not interested in finding a solution to improving him or herself and finding a job. The Salvation Army has dedicated itself to working with and helping the marginalized people of this province. They believe and have proven many times over that their process works. The continuum of care that is given starts from the moment someone asks for assistance. The Salvation Army is ready for any challenge.
We live in one of the most affluent countries in the world in a time when wealth has never been so bountiful, yet those who have not are receiving less. What is truly sad is that most of those who are living in poverty are struggling so hard to survive that they have few, if any, expectations of improving their positions. It's shameful that any person living in this country should have to go hungry. Can you imagine having to calculate whether you can afford to eat today? Often food banks are the only hope for these people. The Salvation Army served over half a million people meals last year alone.
The number of destitute single mothers could fill B.C. Place Stadium three times. The plight of some of these families is heartbreaking. Unemployment, violence, addiction, abandonment and the absence of anyone to care leave thousands helpless. The Salvation Army's family services help parents in poverty to cope. They make sure there is food in the cupboard, blankets on the beds and a treat for the kids on their birthdays.
Most addicts pick up the habit in their teens, and two-thirds of the children in grades 7 to 12 consume alcohol or other drugs. They are our addicts of tomorrow. Drugs are everyone's problem. They are the leading cause of crime and the greatest threat to our children's potential. Members of the Salvation Army will tell you that most youth who live on the streets will die before they reach 30. They help addicts to kick their habits and turn their lives around.
The Salvation Army rescues women and children from domestic abuse and unbearable home life. They help women regain their confidence and self-worth and give them the strength they need to make new lives for themselves.
[1835]
For over 100 years in British Columbia the Salvation Army has been here to comfort and care for any person in crisis: children, single mothers, the elderly, the addicted, the abused, the hungry, the homeless, the hospitalized -- countless thousands, people from all walks of life. The Salvation Army helps more people in more ways than any other independent social service in our province with the many programs that they offer. They comfort without judgment; they listen and encourage, because they care. Many victims are able to turn over a new leaf and lead better lives, all because of the Salvation Army.
The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Mission-Kent.
D. Streifel: It gives me some pleasure to stand and respond to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on issues around poverty and to recognize the good works that have happened in this province, particularly by the Salvation Army.
I grew up to know the Sally Ann as the thrift store or the jingling kettle at Christmas time and these kinds of issues. The thrift store was my primary source of garments when I was growing up in a one-income family, a millworker's family.
What I'm going to focus my comments on today is really a little bit of the history of the Salvation Army, being an evangelical church that has been operating in Canada since 1882. The Army's motivation, of course, is love of God and a deep concern for the needs of humanity expressed through a broad spectrum of social services. The Army is active in over 100 countries in the world.
I'd really like to focus on Miracle Valley. It's written up in our local paper in Mission as the miracle in the valley, and it's really well spoken of with that description. The Miracle Valley treatment centre has been open since 1962. I remember the controversy of the establishment of Miracle Valley within the neighbourhood, and I tell you now that if it was ever to leave, it would be a bigger controversy, because they're very, very good neighbours to the folks in the McConnell Creek area. Miracle Valley serves -- now, I guess, with their new expansion -- over 600 people a year. They have 171 beds, and the centre serves not only the people in the Mission-Kent area but people from all over British Columbia.
It was just two weeks ago or so that the new expansion at Miracle Valley was opened, and what a day that was. I was unable to attend. It's my way of excusing myself, but I have been there very many times.
In line with the Salvation Army's mission, the treatment centre serves people from all socioeconomic and racial stratas of the population. The Miracle Valley treatment centre is often a last resort for many people. The centre takes pride in the fact that it does not turn away anyone who seeks help, regardless of economic circumstances.
The centre actually has a full-time continuum of care coordinators who reach out into communities all over the province to make them aware of the Miracle Valley treatment centre and all it has to offer. They currently have 28 full-time staff, including seven front-line counsellors with accreditation, many in the form of an MA in addiction counselling. Other employees who help make the facility a success are night attendants and support staff such as cooks, administrators, security guards and chaplains. The Christian component of their program is a part of their therapy, and that is why they have chosen to find ways to continue running the programs under their care.
They also remain independent, because they value the maintenance of the length of their program, which is ten
[ Page 16326 ]
weeks, compared to most 28-day treatment programs. The program begins with a 28-day pre-treatment phase during which the people are given an introduction to treatment for approximately four hours a day. During that time they're introduced to the 12 steps of AA and the rules of the centre. They get to know each other and their counsellors and receive medical treatment. Then the participants enter a 72-day front-line treatment phase, where they enter intensive group therapy and one-on-one counselling for up to seven hours per day.
In addition to the longer treatment program, Miracle Valley treatment centre invests in services to give people the tools to get back on their feet after the program. They have three kinds of after-treatment programs which are geared to fulfilling individual needs.
I notice my time is running out, hon. Speaker, so I'd just like to focus on the opportunity that exists for people once they've come through the treatment at Miracle Valley. They have the opportunity to go from residents to students, to get their GED, to go into college or to go into some other programs like chef's training, cook's training, which is a recognized apprenticeship program. The folks that participate there get that opportunity.
I've visited Miracle Valley many times. I've witnessed their relationship, their good-neighbour relationship, within the area of McConnell Creek. I've been there during the open houses and the cake cuttings, where people have come back to celebrate years of sobriety and years of productive opportunity in the communities. It is all credit to the Salvation Army and the work they do.
This member for Mission-Kent and this citizen of British Columbia, recognizing the long history of the Salvation Army, would like to say thank you to the Sally Ann.
[1840]
B. McKinnon: I would like to thank the member opposite for his remarks. One of the things that the Salvation Army has found in the years of service to British Columbia is the large gaps in service for women and youth especially. Various government ministries offer very limited resources to the marginalized and disadvantaged in this province. These people have no money to access any services for professional counselling. I was amazed to learn that four government ministries refer people in need to the Salvation Army for professional counselling. There are no government dollars offered to assist with this very important service provided by the Army. Their staff are overworked and unable to scratch the surface of the need in this area, due to the inadequate funding for counsellors.
There are so many services that are needed for women and children in this province. We haven't even scratched the surface of the problems women face today. More beds are needed for transition homes, emergency shelters, supportive recovery programs, sustainable affordable housing for women and children when they leave transition homes. More detox beds and substance abuse treatment centres are needed.
There is a significant lack of adequate detox and treatment centres for youth. There is also a critical need to upgrade many of the Salvation Army's facilities. Their buildings are old and in desperate need of repair and/or replacement. The Red Shield Appeal only generates funds for the operation of their services. A new source of funding is needed for capital purposes.
"Into the next century, we will be there" is the Salvation Army's pledge today and tomorrow. With their band of volunteers, they have the strength in numbers. With financial support from government and the generosity of the citizens of this province, they will have the practical means to continue their fight. The decades have taught them that human suffering, hardship and need know no boundaries of time. The problems that existed in the past are the same ones that exist today and will exist long into the future. The Salvation Army is committed to people, because the people need them. Thank God for the commitment of the Salvation Army.
The Red Shield Appeal is the ongoing campaign for the Salvation Army to raise funds to keep all of these services operating. These services depend upon the generous donations of those who care. I appeal to all to support this wonderful organization that is becoming overwhelmed with the large number of people who need help. Please care enough to give. When you give to the Red Shield Appeal, you directly help fund their many programs and services. Although they accomplish much every day, each day they witness how much more needs to be done.
The Salvation Army is a denomination of its own within the evangelical Christian church worldwide. They do not discriminate in their sphere of ministry in assisting people from all walks of life, religion, sex or colour. Everyone is welcome to come to any Salvation Army office in the world, and they will be given assistance.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
For the fourth private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Comox Valley.
INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN
E. Gillespie: In this House we have often used the opportunity of private members' statements to speak about issues that are important to us. One issue that comes before this House regularly is that of child care and, in particular, the relationship between child care and child poverty.
Last year I welcomed a British Columbia discussion paper on child care. In my own community of the Comox Valley, that discussion paper prompted a meeting of the political leadership in the Comox Valley to have a discussion about "whose issue is this, anyway?"
Our conclusion at that meeting was that child care is an issue for parents. It is an issue for employers. It's an issue for communities, and it's an issue for local, provincial and federal governments. We often hear, in grandiose terms, that children are our most precious resource. If we really believe this, then how we care for our children becomes an issue for all of society.
I welcomed the children's agenda put forward by the federal government in this year's throne speech, and I challenge the federal government to demonstrate to all Canadians its commitment to the care of our children and to the elimination of child poverty. In my view, it is a shameful comment on our Canadian society, as signatories to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child and as a country which has dedicated itself to the elimination of child poverty, that over the past ten years child poverty has not decreased in Canada.
[ Page 16327 ]
[1845]
I'd like to talk a little bit about the work that has been done in British Columbia from 1991 to present and then bring us up to date on some current work in the area of child care.
I'm proud to be a citizen in a province that takes its responsibility for child care seriously.
In 1992 there were 42,757 licensed child care spaces in British Columbia. By March of 1999 this had risen to 71,355 licensed spaces, an increase of more than 66 percent. Some may ask: "Why is it important to look at licensed child care spaces?" I would submit that with licensed child care, we have a standard which we can hold people and agencies accountable to for the care of our children.
One of the most important programs, I think, that we have in this province is the school-based program for young parents. Those programs have increased from 15 to 48, providing more than 800 child care spaces. I know how important that program is when I look at our own school, Vanier high school, where young women and young men who have become parents have the opportunity to complete their education while having the support they need to be able to raise their children in the best possible way.
Just this week, we have announced publicly funded child care for children from grade 1 to age 12 to be available before and after school for an amount of $7 on school days and $14 for all-day child care during the school breaks, starting January 2001. As a parent of young children, one of whom would fall in this age category, I welcome this initiative. I welcome this in terms of the safety of children in our communities across British Columbia, and I welcome this initiative in terms of the accessibility opportunities for families across this province. That means that parents will save, on average, about $1,100 per child per school year.
This program recognizes that as many as 84 percent of British Columbia families with school-age children have two parents in the paid labour force. As a society we benefit from this early investment in our children. Studies have shown that in later years, the return on invested dollars is 2 to 1 when it comes to health and social services. That number rises to 7 to 1 when helping the most disadvantaged children.
I believe that in this society we have a choice. We can take care of our children from the earliest of ages. We can approach that as a societal issue, or we can take care of our children through the criminal justice system, through our health care system and through mental health. I think the choice there is fairly clear. Child care is part of this government's overall strategy to reduce child poverty and to increase options for parents.
British Columbia currently has about 800 centres offering before- and after-school care for 19,000 children. I look forward to an expansion of that program, and in particular, I look forward to an expansion of that program in the community of Cumberland, which is part of the constituency I represent. In Cumberland there is no licensed child care. This is a very real concern for me and for parents and families in that community. Some of these children stay home alone. Currently I meeting with the minister to find some way of ensuring the safety and well-being of these children.
This program can go a long way in protecting and improving the lives of children and families in my community and throughout the province. Before- and after-school child care is a challenge for many households, especially for single-parent families, 83 percent of which are led by women. Whether they're working outside the home or upgrading their education and training, they must have confidence that their children are being cared for in safe and stimulating environments. Child care is a key factor in the ability of women to build economic equality for themselves and their families.
[1850]
Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is coming to a close. I would like to raise some of the questions that have been raised by the public at large and speak to those in my response. I look forward to the comments of the hon. member.
L. Reid: I thank my hon. colleague opposite from the Comox Valley for her comments on investing in childhood. I believe it's vitally important.
I want to begin my remarks this evening by paying tribute to an outstanding Canadian, in my view, and the woman is June Callwood. It was my privilege to open a conference with her some months back. A photograph that I will always treasure is a photograph of her holding my daughter, Olivia, when Olivia was two weeks of age. The conference was about children at risk and why it's important to invest in the very early years of a child's life.
The study I want to reference this afternoon is "Reversing the Real Brain Drain." It's the early years study by Margaret McCain and Fraser Mustard. We've all spent much time over the years following the work of Fraser Mustard in terms of how important it is at zero to six years of age to do some investment because of the actual connection between brain development and future life success. Employability is part of that, but quality of life is a big part of the piece that we have, frankly, missed over the years when we have had this discussion. The most critical period
I intend to put on the record some of the quotes from the study.
They believe -- and this is again the work of Margaret McCain and Fraser Mustard -- that that is indeed the most critical period in a child's life."We examined the evidence from the neurosciences, developmental psychology, social sciences, anthropology and other disciplines about the relationship between early brain and child development and learning, behaviour and health throughout all stages of life. We consider, in view of this evidence, that the period of early childhood development is equal to, or in some cases, greater in importance for the quality of the next generation than the periods children and youth spend in education or post-secondary education."
There is much discussion around brain development and, frankly, new understandings of how important that is for children.
Our new understanding of brain development in the early years and its impact and effect on subsequent learning, behaviour and health for individuals has led a number of governments and other organizations to take steps to provide better circumstances in and outside the home for early child development. They begin by building a synthesis of the infor-
[ Page 16328 ]
mation, and then they work through all the opportunities for parents and for caregivers in the zero-to-six range to provide some stimulation for children -- vitally important.
I will take a moment, too, and talk about the public nurse program in the province of British Columbia, which is absolutely outstanding. The woman I would put on the record is Anne Higgins, the woman who in fact cared for my infant in the very early days and made many visits to my home to talk about how important it was to have those kinds of opportunities in place for stimulation, for growth, for nurturing.
I take that commentary on the importance of it in terms of creating an opportunity for this Legislature to expand that opportunity for all children in British Columbia between zero and six years of age. We know now that development of the brain in the early years of life, particularly the first three years, sets the base for competence and coping skills for the later stages of life. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.
"Ensuring that all our future citizens are able to develop their full potential has to be a high priority for everyone. It is crucial if we are to reverse the real brain drain." That is the comment from this report.
I want to conclude my remarks with this final quote:
That commentary we as a caucus fundamentally believe. We have spent a great deal of time and effort in crafting our response to the early childhood development piece, in hopefully modelling the Healthy Start program that is currently in place in Hawaii, in looking very, very carefully at what we can do for the children in this province who need that kind of stimulation, that kind of interaction, when they're very young."Prior to the discovery of this awesome new evidence about early brain development, it was widely believed that the architecture of the brain was pretty well set at birth by the individual's genetic characteristics inherited from the parents. Scientists have now discovered that a tremendous amount of brain development occurs between conception and age one.
"There is also new understanding about how these stimuli from a child's experiences before the age of three influence the 'wiring' of the nerve cells
. . . and neural pathways of the brain. The active interplay of early stimulation of the brain through the sensing pathways with the basic genetic structure of the brain has a direct and decisive effect on a child's brain development, which has a long-term impact on the adult the child will become. Human development is not a matter of nature versus nurture, but rather the interplay of nature and nurture together."
[1855]
So if there's work in place that will allow this Legislature to move forward on the zero-to-six piece, I believe we will make a difference -- not just for our children, but for every single child in the province and for the children who will come after. This report talks about the children who were born last year and this year, who will in fact be entering the workforce in the year 2025. All of us will still be -- hopefully not in this Legislature -- having this very same discussion. But we will still be living, breathing people in this province who will hopefully be able to see the benefit of having made some decisions today. Twenty-five years hence we will see the fruitfulness of this discussion.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. To conclude, with the reply, the hon. member for Comox Valley.
E. Gillespie: I thank the member for her comments. I will say that I heartily agree with what she is saying. I too know June Callwood, from another area -- in the work that she's done in hospice development, which she was involved in some 20 years ago. Indeed, I would agree with you that she is a remarkable and energetic woman who is committed to making change and who does make change.
I also wanted to say just a short word about Healthy Start types of programs. I am very aware and very supportive of the work that public health nurses do across this province. I think one of the most important functions of public health nurses is the pre-natal education that they do to make sure that women who are pregnant understand the health risks of the use of alcohol and drugs and also that they understand the potential for their own babies to have access to adequate and good nutrition. I think that an absolutely essential part of the package that we have to look at as well, in making sure that our babies have the healthiest possible opportunities, is that pre-natal area.
I left off talking about child care and child poverty. People ask the question: "How does the public child care program help child poverty?" My answer to them would be: "We know that affordable child care is a support to parents to maintain a return to the workforce and/or to access training to enable them to work. We know that a parent's attachment to the workforce has significant impact on children in poverty. Children are not isolated in poverty. Children are parts of families. And it's families who experience that poverty.
If parents are spending less on their child care costs, then they will have more money for other financial needs -- for instance, for clothing, for shelter and for food. So while this is a modest program -- the program that I speak of, the before- and after-school care program -- and may not address all of the needs of all of the families in this province, it is doable for the immediate future.
We intend to continue to build upon our partnerships with child care providers, parents and school staff to build a comprehensive system of child care for British Columbia as both good social policy and an essential economic strategy. We will expand the new provincial child care program to include younger children as the budget permits. British Columbia will continue to spend about $188 million annually on child care, including subsidies to parents in low-income families and to upgrade child care facilities.
The number of licensed child care spaces has grown by almost 60 percent since 1992. We support licensed child care because it provides a standard of care and a standard of accountability.
I see that three minutes goes all too fast. I would just like to conclude by saying that we cannot continue to ignore the realities that children in this province and country face.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. Thank you to all members for their statements.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
[ Page 16329 ]
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:37 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 24: ministry operations, $4,536,431,000 (continued).
S. Hawkins: I have two specific issues that I'd like to canvass with the minister. The first is the one I ask about every year. I note that this is now the third Education minister in probably the last six months, so hopefully she's up to speed on this issue.
It's the KSS, Kelowna Secondary School, project -- long overdue. I think all parties are glad to see that some progress is being made. I understand the site cleanup is being done now. But I'm going to just put a couple of things on the record.
First of all, I think there are parents who are still upset, and I think the ministry staff know about that. Maybe I'll just ask the minister to start by giving us a brief overview of where we are with that project. I understand there were problems with contamination of this site. We did environmental studies; they came back fairly clean. There was some site cleanup. Now, I understand that portables are being removed from the site and that the school is going as planned.
If the minister can just tell me: where are we as far as being on target or off target, and when is the school going to be completed?
[1440]
Hon. P. Priddy: There is some information about the background. But I think what I heard the member asking at the end was: "Is it on target?" I'm told yes, it is on target, which is September 2001.
S. Hawkins: It's on target for the new target, I guess. It has been delayed quite a bit, but that's good. We've got a date set for that.
There was a story done on this just recently in the local paper. It's always disturbing to see that there are still concerns over the funding of the school and meeting the deadline. The story is from June 7, and the headline says: "Resentment Lingers over KSS Project." And that's the parents, with the advisory committee
In the article, Don McEachern thinks that there might be a shortfall in funding. The school board might actually have to come up with the balance of the money. The article notes that before the Ministry of Education financed the rebuild of this school, the school district agreed to use $8 million from the sale of the old KSS property -- which is downtown -- East Kelowna Elementary School, Ellison Elementary, and Gordon Elementary to help defray the construction costs.
Through the documents that the parent advisory council obtained from the ministry, they feel it suggests that if the existing KSS site were sold for less than $5.3 million, the district would have to pay the difference. Can the minister give some comfort to these parents on that concern?
Hon. P. Priddy: If indeed the sale of KSS is less than what people have projected, the ministry tops up the capital. So if indeed, after they sold their assets, it doesn't meet the amount that was targeted, the ministry will top those dollars up. The district won't be asked to find them.
S. Hawkins: Thanks to the minister for clarifying that as well. Back to the funding issue and sale of the site, I wonder if the minister can give us some background information. I understand that there is also some controversy, some confusion, over who actually owns the KSS site. There are records with the city of Kelowna that there are two parcels of land on the old KSS site downtown that were transferred in trust from the city to the school board for the purposes of schooling.
I know that city officials have been meeting with ministry officials in Education and Finance to help clarify the situation. None of the parties, and certainly not this member, wants to see that delay the construction of this school. As the minister knows and I know, ministry officials and our local school board and parents have been working very hard to get our kids into a safer school. We would like to see a safe environment for our kids to learn.
I know the city has the same objective. They don't want to delay this school. The school board doesn't want to; the parents don't want to. I know the ministry doesn't want to. But there is an issue brewing over who owns the land. I wonder if the minister can give me an overview of this situation as to the minister's understanding of it. I will also canvass it in the Ministry of Finance, because I understand they are responsible as well.
[1445]
I did meet with my city officials. They would like a win-win out of this. There are two parcels on that existing site. They tell me that in order to have a healthy downtown community, they would like to still see families and children down there. It is their intention -- and it was their intention all along over the past few years, few decades -- to have that land, that zoning for schools. That is something they are still pursuing, and I know they are working with the ministry. If the minister can give us an overview of that issue and if there's been any resolve or movement towards resolve so that we get a win-win all around, I'd be interested to hear it.
Hon. P. Priddy: I do realize that there are local discussions going on about these two parcels. I think the most important answer for the new high school is the fact that those discussions will not delay the site. The site will move ahead, and people will sort out those local issues. But it will not delay the building of the school.
S. Hawkins: That's reassurance. We don't want to see a delay. Does the Ministry of Education, because it is through
[ Page 16330 ]
the sale of that complete parcel that this new school is going to be partly funded, take a position on this issue at all as far as who owns the land? If this minister doesn't, who is going to answer those questions?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that in this -- well, in any set of circumstances
S. Hawkins: That's good. Two issues that parents and the community were concerned about seem to be answered here today. The school will be fully funded, the school board won't be penalized if there's a shortfall in the sale, and hopefully the school won't be delayed.
Just so the minister understands, on the two parcels of land that were transferred, the city does have the deeds, and they do have the bylaws. The one parcel was passed over to the school board October 6, 1947, and it's very clear in the legal document that it was passed through in trust for school purposes. The second parcel was passed to the school board January 24, 1966.
I will canvass it through the Ministry of Finance and ask the minister what legal documents they are relying on for their opinion, if they have come to one.
[1450]
The second issue that is of concern and that seems to have done the route between several ministers, and now it lands on this minister's desk, is the busing issue. The minister is probably aware there are walk limits that the ministry has set -- for children in kindergarten-to-grade-3, four kilometres for walk limits, and for grade 4 on, 4.8 kilometres for the balance of the kids. We've canvassed this every year. I believe the Minister of Finance, who used to be the Minister of Education, had said he wouldn't review the limits. The Minister of Employment and Investment, who used to be the Education minister, came to our community and said that he would review the walk limits. Now because we have a new minister, we're going to hear from this minister.
But I just want to give the minister a little bit of background. Our community has grown tremendously, and it's one of the fastest-growing in North America -- it certainly is in our province. We have a unique situation where we're in an urban-rural setting. There are not always sidewalks; there are not always shoulders on the rural roads; there are not always safe conditions. We have a new school that's built right across from a highway, so we see kids crossing highways, which I think is kind of unsafe. We don't have overpasses there. There are wildlife considerations. We do have bears; we do have cougars; we have all kinds of wildlife in those areas. We don't have full public transit, although the school board and the city are working very closely to establish that. And certainly there are weather considerations as well, when you couple all those other issues into that and then throw in the weather we have in the Okanagan.
So I am concerned about the busing issue. Last year, when we canvassed it with the Minister of Education, the school board realized, through an internal audit, that they had been overpaid on their transportation budget. I believe that at that time, the minister told me -- and I think this is correct -- the school board didn't have to pay that back over the last few years. But their budget was trimmed back to where it should be according to the walk limits.
So the school board, over the last year, initiated a user-pay system, and it appears to have failed. The school board doesn't have the money to implement a full bus system for all kids. Coming up to this new school year, it's going to be very troubling for parents, because what they would like to see is a review of the walk limits to consider children's health and safety. Rather than just arbitrarily drawing a line between certain grades and ages, they would like to see some of these other considerations come into play.
We don't have, as I said, the infrastructure in the Okanagan that perhaps a city like Surrey or Vancouver would have, with full transit system, sidewalks all that kind of stuff -- although I know some of those areas are growing and don't have them either. But it is different in rural areas and certainly in fast-growing areas.
So what the parents are asking for, I think is reasonable. They're asking for a review, they're asking for the minister to hear their concerns, and they're asking if the issue could just be opened up. If at the end of the day the ministry decides they're not going to do it, then that's fine. But what they would like is a forum to have the discussion, to make their presentation to the minister and to have the walk limits reviewed.
Hon. P. Priddy: Three things, if I might. In terms of what the member refers to as the overpayment that the school district received for transportation, I'm not sure it was so much overpayment as the fact that the district was funding 30 -- I hesitate to use the word "illegal," but I don't have another one -- routes that were not approved routes. It wasn't that somebody accidentally got overpaid, but there were 30 routes where children, students, were being transported that weren't approved routes, if you will -- including, I think, an independent school.
[1455]
In terms of the safety, the transportation review, which did consult with the Kelowna school district, is
S. Hawkins: Can the minister refresh my memory and just tell me when the specific walk limits that the ministry subscribes to now were set?
Hon. P. Priddy: This particular piece, actually, we will have to check. The school walk limits went from policy into the act when the act was done in 1988. I don't have anybody
[ Page 16331 ]
here who can tell me how far back beyond that, unless we have educators here who were educating quite some time ago and might be able to add to the discussion. I will find out for you. I just don't have somebody here who knows that.
But when I looked at our walk limits compared to walk limits across the country, they were quite compatible and, in point of fact, lower than many provinces.
S. Hawkins: But we do do things differently from other provinces, because we have compared the system across several different provinces. I'm just wondering if the minister
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member is correct: it is not one size fits all, whether it's in Alberta or here in British Columbia. One of the things that will be a result of the transportation review, in just the next little bit, is that there will be a committee of, if you will, experts. People did do the transportation review, but we'll now be setting up a committee that will have ICBC, the RCMP and an expert on the transportation road safety issues. They will have a look at the review and then make some recommendations around variances where they think that's appropriate.
S. Hawkins: I just want to canvass the transportation review committee a little bit. Who sits on that committee, and who do they hear from?
[1500]
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to be sure I answer the question clearly. We have not historically had a freestanding transportation committee. The transportation review is actually done by an external consulting group. As a result of that review, aside from the safety committee which I talked about, with the RCMP and ICBC and so on, there will be a transportation committee that will be made up of all of the partners, including parents.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister give me any specific information on that committee, like: how is she going to choose the parents? Is it going to be done randomly? Are there going to be hearings of this committee so that we do have the voices from different areas of the province?
It's not just the Okanagan that's concerned here. I have letters from parents, obviously, across my district. Our district includes a huge area. I've got parents from Lake Country that are writing to me and are quite upset, because as I mentioned to the minister, they do pay their taxes and pay for the transit system. But it's not available to them. When they fall outside the walk limits, their kids end up walking in areas that they don't feel are safe, or the parents are spending that extra time and effort and money in transporting their kids to school.
I wonder if the minister can give me any specifics. If indeed it hasn't been struck yet, would she commit to giving us the terms of reference of the committee, who's going to sit on the committee, what kinds of things they're going to look at, whether there's a time line? How can parent advisory councils respond to this very, very important issue?
Hon. P. Priddy: The terms of reference are currently being worked on. In terms of how people would be selected for that, we've always supported the idea that organizations will select their own representatives; we don't do that for them. BCCPAC, for instance, as the parent group, would pick a representative, as would teachers, as would administrators, as would CUPE, as would all those other folks who are education partners.
S. Hawkins: Then I am going to try to summarize. The minister is telling me that the walk limits will not be reviewed at all. They are written the way they are, and that is something that the ministry is not going to review. The minister is going to review safety, perhaps health and safety concerns, within those walk limits and perhaps make adjustments for different regions or different areas of the province as they hear those concerns.
Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. The review that the member refers to -- and she is correct; we will do that -- will be based on the sort of objective criteria that, as I say, ICBC and RCMP and those experts provide for us.
S. Hawkins: I'll wrap up by saying that I look forward to the review, as I know a lot of parents do. If the minister has the terms of reference and the committee struck, I wonder if she could keep this member informed so that I can keep my constituents informed.
B. McKinnon: The Surrey school district was required in 1998, through legislation, to employ a specified number of special education resource teachers. Surrey was required to staff these special education resource teachers at a ratio more costly than other mainland school districts. I would like to ask the minister: why is that, and is that fair?
[1505]
Hon. P. Priddy: Because it is the district in which I reside, of course the board has spoken with me about this as well. The cost of special education is linked to the collective agreement. The teachers aren't more expensive, and the special education costs have not risen, but the cost is related to the ratio required by the collective agreement. I know the board asked if I could change the language in the collective agreement, and I explained that it doesn't quite work like that.
B. McKinnon: It was the NDP who forced Surrey to take this legislation. When you look at our special education grants and the cost of special education in Surrey, there is insufficient financial support to effectively provide a viable special education program, because of the staffing parameters set by both the provincial collective agreement and the staffing requirements of the local collective agreement. Surrey is powerless to effectively modify any program delivery method without resistance or litigation from the local teachers association.
Surrey has the highest cost of delivery for special education in this province, no matter which way we look at it. Now, it was this government who made Surrey pay these higher costs. Surrey has been forced because of this to redirect financial resources from other areas of their operating budget such as regular instruction, learning resources, library resources and classroom equipment, in order to meet the restrictive staffing requirements for special education.
[ Page 16332 ]
You know, it absolutely amazes me. We have three cabinet ministers in Surrey, and yet we still get the short end of the stick when it comes to education. We have a government that legislates more costs to a school district but won't give them the funds to do it.
Surrey is not being treated equally. Our students are not being treated fairly and are not getting the same quality of education as other students in other districts in this province. It was the government that legislated this extra cost. So I ask the minister: is she going to help Surrey with the $10 million shortfall in order that Surrey students can get an equal education and an equal allotment of dollars?
Hon. P. Priddy: My ministry staff have certainly talked with Surrey school district staff about whether there are ways to be more flexible in terms of how the dollars are used within the school system. That's the first part.
Secondly, the special education review is at the Queen's Printer -- or back, I'm not sure -- as we speak. Many people made recommendations to that review, as well, that there needed to be more flexibility in terms of how people can allocate money within the special education category -- which is kind of a difficult one. There's a lot of targeted money in special education, and that was done for good reasons long before my time in government. Because boards weren't spending the required amount on special education, then the government -- the previous government, pre-'91 -- required dollars to be targeted for children in a certain educational category. So the review has made some recommendations about more flexibility in terms of that. But the review will not inform this year's budget; it will only inform next year's budget.
Certainly boards have the authority, if they wish
B. McKinnon: I'd like the minister to answer: if you force a school board to pay more moneys for collective agreements, why don't you fund them for those higher costs?
[1510]
Hon. P. Priddy: As a result of the provincial collective agreement, every teacher indeed was funded at cost.
B. McKinnon: I have a school in my riding that wonders if anyone in this ministry cares about the school or the students that attend this school. That school is the Surrey Centre Elementary School in Cloverdale. They have parents and teachers wondering what it takes to qualify for replacement. How deplorable do the conditions of a school have to get before funding for a new school gets approved?
Now, I know that the Surrey school board has to approve funding and everything else for replacement or that sort of thing. But when the Surrey school board gets so constricted with their funds because they have to pay the high labour costs that they're forced to pay, they can't afford to do this. So the parents and the teachers would like to know how this school can get into such deplorable conditions and there's actually nothing to be done. Could the minister tell me and the parents what conditions a school has to deteriorate to until they will be forced to do something about it?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's important that we note -- and people might argue differently, although I'm not sure folks here would -- that the school district, when you tender a project, is required to accept low bid. So the "high labour charges" that people talk about I don't think are that kind of a factor. It's under the School Act that they must accept the low bid. There are probably reasons that shouldn't be the case, as well, but nevertheless that is the case. So they do get to accept the lowest bid.
Surrey school district since 1992-93 has had close to $500 million in capital funding, and the school district itself and the trustees and the staff have said that they believe they have been extremely well served in terms of capital dollars and in point of fact have had almost all of their projects approved.
The challenge, I think, with Surrey Centre school -- I've read the newspaper articles and the parents' comments -- is the fact that the school board did not choose to place it as a priority school. It has not asked for it in this year's request; I believe they may be asking for it in next year's request. But the board did not put that school forward. The board did not see it as a priority to put forward. We have funded almost every priority that that school district has given us.
B. McKinnon: That doesn't answer my question, which was: how deplorable do conditions have to get at a school?
Hon. P. Priddy: You have to ask the school board.
B. McKinnon: Yeah, we always have to blame the school board. Well, Surrey Centre has a capacity for 165 students; their current enrolment is very close to 300 students. There are now seven portables on this site, and this year three portables were added -- during a time when we were supposed to be reducing the number of portables. One of these portables was brought in in mid-September, because the enrolment projections were too low and the school suddenly found themselves with more students than they could handle.
When this portable was delivered to the school, it was covered in green slime, and it sat that way for a number of weeks until a crew finally showed up to power-wash it. Kids had to go to school in this portable. One of the portables is used for a washroom facility. The school's facilities are inadequate to handle the number of students and staff in the school.
What is so appalling about this situation is that the school is not connected to a sewer system. It's on a septic field. Down the hill just below that septic field is a child day care centre and a church. Is this safe for our children to play in? The amount of people using that field
I'd just like to read you something from a letter. Rae Andrews, the chairman of the replacement school task force.
I'm going to quote from this letter about this septic system. Sally Thompson says here: "Consider the contamination risk of our students and teachers and the neighbours down
[ Page 16333 ]
the hill. It is not uncommon to find mice, as well as their droppings, lurking in cupboards and closets. The electrical system is inadequate, frayed and overloaded. The fire hazard is frightening."
I mean, this is what we're giving our students in Surrey Centre school -- 300 students. We could have a fire just like that. The diseases that could come from mice droppings
[1515]
Hon. P. Priddy: Just, if I could, one piece of information: the board did request dollars for the sewer connection for this year, and those dollars were approved.
Do people care in the ministry? Of course we do. Do people care at the school district? I guess you have to ask that question there.
This is not an attempt at all to say: "Blame the school board." If the member is suggesting that the school board's requests for the schools that they want funded should be ignored and the minister should choose which schools get to be built, then I guess that's an argument that she might wish to advance. But the school district and the local departments of health are responsible for the health and safety of students and staff.
This school district did not request this school for this year. This school district did not request the school for next year. We've just checked, and it's not in next year's plan in terms of their request. So it would seem to me that the local MLA and the parent group should be demanding of the school district that they put it on their priority list for funding. It would be fairly unusual for the ministry to fund a school that the school district hasn't even indicated they want funding for.
B. McKinnon: The minister knows very well that Surrey is shortchanged as far as funds go, that they do not have the funds to do this. They are $10 million short because of the collective agreement that they were forced by this government to take.
This minister could take a leadership role and give Surrey the money for the sake of these children -- these 300 children in Surrey. Give them the money to build the new school that they desperately need. This school was built in 1940 for half of the student and staff population that it has been forced to accommodate. The school has a tiny library which doesn't meet the needs of the students. You could call the gymnasium half a gym. The students aren't able to put on concerts
The Chair: Hon. member, order for a moment, please. The Chair really hesitates to intervene. The question has been put to the minister four times, really, on whose responsibility
B. McKinnon: Well, I think
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
B. McKinnon: Thank you, hon. Chair. I see that this government isn't going to do anything for these students, so I will just pass on my questions to another member.
Hon. P. Priddy: I do think it's important just to make the note that while Surrey school district does have a challenge for operating dollars -- as many school districts do -- they do not in any way have a challenge for capital dollars. If indeed the school district had asked for this school, they likely would have gotten it.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister on the issue of middle schools. I don't have any axe to grind here.
I have, within my constituency, Yarrow Elementary and Cultus Lake Elementary, both elementary schools that are part of school district 33, Chilliwack. The school district is embarking on a program of implementing the middle school concept. I wonder if the minister could clarify for me: does the ministry have any policy with respect to the implementation of middle schools in any school district in B.C.?
[1520]
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the answer's actually no. The configuration of schools is generally left to the local school district. Just as an example, Richmond -- and I think actually Surrey as well -- tend to move toward a full secondary model; they support an 8-to-12 model. But there are more people who are actually looking at middle schools as well. There is a curriculum book for parents whose children are in a middle school: the middle school edition of the "Curriculum Handbook for Parents." So there is some advice and guidance for people, but there isn't a policy about you can or you cannot, under certain circumstances.
J. van Dongen: I should say to the minister that particularly in Yarrow, where we have a community school, the parents are reacting very negatively to the initiative, and that's really the reason for the questions. Currently, Yarrow Elementary is K-to-6. What it means is going to a middle school like a K-to-5 and then 6-to-8 and a 9-to-12 configuration. That would mean children would move out of the community one year sooner. They would go much farther away from home, so that's the concern for parents. I was wondering: if a school district goes to a middle school configuration, does it have any implications for funding? Could the minister comment specifically on both the operating side and the capital side?
Hon. P. Priddy: I was interested in the member's comments. I have had no experience with middle schools at all, being from Surrey. I've been visiting a few lately, and I was interested to hear the parents' response to this one.
In terms of the question around costing and so on, the only requirement the ministry has is that it has to be cost-neutral for capital. The per-pupil funding is just based on the configuration that the class has, so there is neither an incentive nor a disincentive, from a dollar or resource perspective, to move to or away from a particular model.
[ Page 16334 ]
J. van Dongen: I was interested in the minister's answer, because it was put to me that -- to use Surrey school district as an example -- they are not considering going to a middle school model. It was suggested to me that it was because there was a greater draw on capital to do that. I'm just reporting what I've been told, I don't know. The parents that are obviously opposed -- and there's a lot of them in the Chilliwack school district -- apparently feel that the school district may be incurring additional capital costs to put in this configuration. I just want to confirm that the minister is saying that it will not influence capital budgets and will be totally neutral in that respect.
Hon. P. Priddy: That is our requirement. If you indeed hear or see something different, we're happy to hear about that. But our requirement is that it must be cost-neutral, and there must be no additional capital costs from doing it.
J. van Dongen: Just one final comment. I did talk to the chairman of the school board in Abbotsford, school district 34. They are also looking at this concept and have had less negative reaction. He indicated that they are considering -- particularly in the rural areas, of which there are still a lot in both of these school districts -- leaving, say, K-to-6 or K-to-7 in those schools, so that they maintain a base of students in those schools, and maybe just going to the middle school concept in the urban core. So I pass that on for what it's worth.
J. Weisbeck: I've had an opportunity to canvass some of the issues on the provincial learning net during the Advanced Education estimates, but there were some holes in the answers. I thought I'd ask it of this ministry. I was interested in the minister's comments in her opening address, talking about the provincial learning net and calling it the most extensive telecommunications network undertaken in Canada. It's a fact, actually, that the government does have one of the most advanced, most sophisticated electronic networks in Canada. But unfortunately, it's gambling technology. It basically connects every gas station, beer parlour and convenience store. So really, in effect, the government's put a lot of emphasis in this telecommunications network on gambling rather than education.
[1525]
The PLN has been around for a while. I've watched the thing since 1996, and I've asked a lot of questions over the years on where it's at. It started off as being, supposedly, a major supplier offering the service, and then it was just out there in the hinterland for a while, not doing much. My understanding now is that it is being operated by Span-B.C., and I would just like to know whether the minister feels comfortable with that. I understand Span-B.C. is
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know the information that was provided during the Advanced Ed estimates, but let me say that the provincial learning net uses a variety of technology methods or resources, including dial-up satellite cable. I mean, it's a whole variety that's used. It's actually operated by ISTA, and the member may know that. The Information Science and Technology Agency is the one that is operating that.
I hear the member's comment about it being old technology. I guess I need to understand that in context. We have people coming from across the country to see what's happening here in British Columbia. Indeed, as the federal government is beginning to talk about connecting all Canadians to each other, this is actually the only province where we're able to do that.
J. Weisbeck: I agree with the minister on the fact that there is some good technology involved. But the basic backbone is old technology, and that was my concern. I'm just wondering whether the minister felt comfortable with that.
Hon. P. Priddy: The question being: is the minister comfortable with
J. Weisbeck: In last year's tech plan we had talked about having three students per computer. I understand we haven't reached anywhere near that figure. I understand it's more like eight or nine students per computer. So we've got the backbone in place, but there are no appliances at the other end. How does the minister feel about that? Do you feel comfortable with that number? What is going to be done about improving that situation?
[1530]
Hon. P. Priddy: I would need to go back and look at the number three. I take that at face value. I wasn't here to hear that.
We have put aside some additional resources for the purchase of new computers. Do I think six or eight or whatever students per computer is okay? No, I don't. I mean, I don't know if we have to have one student per computer. I think three is a good goal. Am I comfortable that we're not there yet? No, I'm not.
We are there with certain groups of children that we are trying to give an additional boost to, if you will, in terms of their learning. We have a very specific program for aboriginal children. I don't know if you might have seen this, but there was this wonderful photograph on the front of the -- I don't mean to give them a plug, but I guess I can say it -- Times Colonist of young aboriginal children who have a particular computer grant and have extraordinary access, and the difference it has made.
For some students who require additional learning assistance, that ratio has dropped significantly. Is eight too many? Yes, it is. Do we need to get to -- if it is -- three? Yes. We do have some resources, but we certainly won't be in that place this year.
J. Weisbeck: The second concern I have is connectivity. Basically, there are lots of 56K links in the system. It's going to be difficult to do a lot of things, I think, with those links. Once again, is there some plan for the ministry to upgrade those
[ Page 16335 ]
links? We've got audiovisual; we've got all kinds of things that could be passing over those lines. Obviously we won't be at the capacity to handle them. What is the ministry's plan to do some upgrades in those areas where the 56K links are present?
Hon. P. Priddy: When I give this answer, it's not in any way intended to say your concern is not legitimate. There are areas where, indeed, there's no question that the links do need to be upgraded. But there has been some work done already in upgrading, actually at no cost, through renegotiation of contracts with Telus. There has been some upgrading done to increase the speed of the lines.
We do have, in some parts of the province, some that are actually much faster than 56K, with T-1 and T-3 lines. So there is work going on to do that kind of upgrading around speed. Part of it's there; there's still work to be done.
J. Weisbeck: Now we've got a line in place. What about the software? Do we have the content to go on? I know for a fact, I think, that you've got some general payroll systems that have gone on line. But what about curriculum? What about some of the other software that's going to be available to the schools?
Hon. P. Priddy: Around the question of software, there is work going on. Again, it is indeed a work in progress, but we are in the process of working out a portal for students, staff and parents. We have had a focus on IT content this year for grades 6 to 9. Once that piece of work is completed, then we will either move up or move down, but that work has gone on this year. Certainly in terms of the use of software, it is being added.
And I just have to say this. I can't describe the whole program, but the member for North Island has a wonderful story he tells about students up there who are listening to the ocean and watching the ocean because they've been able to have this kind of connection. It's extraordinary.
[1535]
J. Weisbeck: My last concern is about training teachers. My understanding is that, for example, in the Okanagan you've got one tech consult to teach quite a number of teachers. It says here: "It'll take ten years at this rate to get themselves up to speed." Apparently there's $11 million in PLN that was supposed to go into training. What happened to it? And what's the government going to be doing about teaching the teachers so they can teach the kids? Or maybe it's the other way around. Maybe we should give the money to the kids and let them teach the teachers.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are probably two parts to this answer. One is for teachers coming into the system -- so new teachers. The computer education, in terms of making sure that teachers are as literate as they can be, is now actually a part of teacher education that goes on at the university level, in terms of the teacher education program. So that at least deals with people coming into the system.
The $11 million is being used. People can access that for courses. I think there's a significant amount of that money being accessed this year. So could we be faster? I'm not sure if it'll take ten years, because I think that using the computer is not only a skill that a teacher requires for school. Most of us learn that skill not only for teaching, but because it's part of our everyday lives these days. But there is access to those dollars for courses. It's being accessed this year, and it is part of teacher education now.
J. Weisbeck: I'm not clear how we would access that money. Is it allocated to certain regions or districts? Or is it just a general fund that any individual can access?
Hon. P. Priddy: To answer the member's question, there are three different ways that I would present -- quickly anyway -- in terms of accessing those dollars. There are dollars that are available for teacher training through the universities. So the universities can access those dollars and use them for teacher training in this area. There are tuition rebates for teachers. So teachers can take the course, submit to us their successful completion and can have tuition rebates. Then there are dollars to local school districts, the curriculum implementation dollars, which many school districts are indeed using for this kind of training because they know it's a priority of the ministry.
[1540]
C. Clark: I have a very few questions with respect to district 43, which is my district or the district that I live in.
I wanted to touch briefly on the use of extended days, which I know the minister will be aware is used extensively in the district 43 -- I think more than any other district in the province. Our complaint, of course, is that we use extended days. We save the ministry about $2.5 million a year because we use them, but there's no recognition of the savings in the formula and in the money that the province passes on to the school district. So perhaps the minister could explain for us how the ministry is going to address this inequity.
Hon. P. Priddy: I have met with the school district, and this indeed was one of the issues that they raised. They had the principal of one of the high schools that has had extended days for a long time. We provide to the school district about $470,000 extra towards extended days. There is not an agreement between the ministry and the school district about the number. So our staff is working with the school district staff currently to look at those numbers.
We've said that if indeed there is a different way of calculating the numbers and we don't have the information and you believe you do, then if you provide it to us, we're prepared to have a look at that. So it's not that there's no dollars, but there's a disagreement about the amount of the money. My deputy has just recently met with the chair of the school board around this issue, as we committed we would do as well.
C. Clark: Could the minister elaborate for us where the differences are in calculating the numbers between the school district and the ministry?
Hon. P. Priddy: The two that I remember from the meeting and that were just confirmed by staff are the calculations around heat and light and the calculation around square metres.
C. Clark: The extended days don't only have a cost, I would argue, to the school districts in straight dollars. They also have a cost for a student's education and the quality of
[ Page 16336 ]
the environment for a teacher to work in or a staff person to work in. That's all borne by the people in the system. Of course, you can't put a dollar figure on that, but it seems to me that given that the school district has been at this for 35 years, using some form of extended days -- and it's using it very extensively now -- we do need to come to some conclusion quite quickly about properly funding extended days in the district.
I would just try to impress upon the minister the urgency in our district of doing that, because we have been paying the price locally. Students have been paying the price locally of going to extended days for a long, long time. And it's getting harder and harder to stretch those dollars.
Having said that, though, the district engages in this kind of playing around with their timetables so that they can save money. It seems to me that it's something that the province should be encouraging across different districts. I'm wondering what kinds of incentives the ministry has put in place to try and give incentives to school districts to pursue extended days.
Hon. P. Priddy: I realize that one or two or three ministers back, maybe two, there was a discussion about extended days and extended days as related to whether capital got approved. I actually might have a different view on extended days and whether we should be providing incentives to school districts. This school district in particular, which certainly has more expertise than anybody else has, has said to us that their choice will be to move away from it. They're not looking to do more, because they think it is a disadvantage for students and for teachers in terms of what you might miss out on by doing extended days. So no, we actually don't have a plan for an initiative to encourage school districts to do extended days. In point of fact, the restriction or the requirement to do extended days to get capital funding was withdrawn.
[1545]
C. Clark: But we need to recognize that the reason the school district does extended days is because they're short of money. I mean, they don't have enough money to fund the needs that they have in their school system, so they've been forced to go to extended days. Now, I think you could argue quite legitimately that the extent to which they've had to use the technique has really disadvantaged students. But I mean, there must be a middle ground in there somewhere, where extended days are a useful technique that we could be encouraging school districts to employ across the province to try to save money. It just seems to me that for the ministry to sort of say, "Well, it hasn't worked in Coquitlam, so we're not going to do it anywhere else," really ignores what's going on there. It has worked in Coquitlam for a long time. It's just that we are finally at the cracking point in that district, where money is so short and the technique has been so overused that they just can't really get any more benefits out of it. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of things. Although I may have a personal view on it, it's not the ministry saying that extended days don't work. In this case it was the school district saying that they believe it's not working. Maybe it's around extent as opposed to the concept, but certainly in the discussion that they had with me a few weeks ago, they said that their choice was to move away from this. I think that's why we have escalated. They're now currently looking, I think, at another secondary site. If they were to stop doing extended days tomorrow -- and I'm sure they have told you the same thing, hon. member -- they would need two new secondary schools. And they're actually looking at a secondary site currently. So we are trying to provide additional capital to take some of that pressure off.
Could a local school district choose to do an extended day if they thought that they needed to and if it was to work for their students? They could do that. Should we provide an incentive? Well, we do provide additional dollars, and as I say, in the case of Coquitlam, it's $470,000 additional to support the extended day.
I would worry a little bit. Maybe people can learn the lesson if one district already has done it. For Coquitlam, I think that while it started out smaller, it's gotten to a stage, because there was such a dearth of capital money through the late seventies and through the eighties. There was very little capital money going on anywhere in the province for building new schools. They've had about $300 million in capital funding over the last seven or eight years. Their indication to me is that they were going to request more capital money and a way to move away from that.
I think your question was: "Does that it make it bad everywhere?" No, but I think the degree is a really important issue that a school would have to consider when doing that.
C. Clark: Does the ministry have a deadline, then, for coming to some conclusion about what the real numbers are, finding consensus about how they're going to figure out the numbers and giving the school district some new money?
A Voice: You're presenting the conclusion.
C. Clark: That's my job.
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't have a particular date for the member. You're right: she's doing her job by moving to the conclusion. We have a meeting set up with the district staff. My staff called last week, and there is a meeting set up. My deputy has already met with the chair. So we realize that this is something that has to be resolved fairly quickly.
C. Clark: The minister did touch on the fact that we're hoping to have some new schools in district 43. One of the schools is the new school for Port Moody, which I understand should be underway by now. But it now looks like its construction has been delayed. I wonder if the minister could give us a status report on that.
Hon. P. Priddy: The completion date -- and I don't have the information here to say if that's changed or not -- is December 31, 2001. My staff will check with the Finance minister about the status of the project -- if it has gone to design, and so on -- and get you that information.
[1550]
C. Clark: I appreciate that, because my understanding is that it is four years away at this stage. I'm hoping very much
[ Page 16337 ]
that I'm wrong. So I appreciate getting any information that I could from the ministry. Does the minister want to add to that?
Hon. P. Priddy: We will do an additional check for the member, but even a secondary school going from design and construction to completion
C. Clark: So it's been through Treasury Board; it's been through all those proper approvals. It's just a matter now of finding out its status, so I appreciate that.
I have two more very quick areas I wanted to touch on. One is the issue of funding for early retirement that has been taken by teachers in district 43. The BCPSEA, as I understand it, offered an incentive for teachers to retire early, and that has had a huge impact on the budget in district 43 because of some of the particular peculiarities of the contract that they have with their teachers. So they had just a huge rush of teachers come in and decide to pick up this early retirement option, and it's had a big impact on their budget.
I understand, though, that they have come up
Hon. P. Priddy: In this particular school district, I think there are two pieces to the retirement challenge that they're facing. The agreement -- or the BCPSEA deal, if you will -- was intended to be cost-neutral, and I think that in point of fact, for the most part it is.
Coquitlam, however, has a locally negotiated retirement package that is, along with one or two other school districts, much richer than you would see in other places in the province. That's not a critique; they clearly wanted to provide that benefit to their teachers.
But what that has meant is that as people apply, because of the BCPSEA one, then the extra piece that the Coquitlam school district has kicks in. What they've asked us to do, if I'm understanding it correctly, is try and roll their local package that they negotiated some time ago into the BCPSEA one. And we're not able to do that, because the BCPSEA one is intended to be cost-neutral.
C. Clark: Are there any other solutions that the ministry is considering? Or is this sort of
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that in this case the local school district is going to have to solve this, because the local school district created it. The retirement package from BCPSEA is one that's cost-neutral. The local school district has its own retirement package, which is a very good one, for teachers. But it is theirs locally, and there's no way for us to step into a local school district and say: "We'll cover off that additional pension package that you've negotiated locally." Or we'd probably be needing to do that around a whole lot of issues across the province. So I'm afraid it is a local one to work out.
[1555]
C. Clark: It's not entirely their problem locally. I mean, the BCPSEA proposal wasn't created by them; they didn't make that problem. They didn't know that this whole process was going to get hijacked, and they were going to be set upon by provincewide requirements. They have their own agreement that they budgeted for, and then suddenly they have this agreement imposed on them with these new incentives built into it. They clearly didn't create that. And they certainly didn't anticipate it.
So it seems to me that the ministry does have some obligation, because the ministry was part of creating the problem to try and help them resolve it. And I know that they're a little bit unique; there are only or two or even three school districts in the province that are subject to this, that are seeing this kind of problem. But it seems to me that that would make it even more likely that the ministry would want to step in and help, given that it's not a very hugely broad and, therefore, enormously expensive thing to try and fix. But it sure means a lot at the local school district level, where they're scrambling for every penny.
Hon. P. Priddy: We may not necessarily find agreement with this one. We don't have a way to be able to assist in this particular way. This was an accord initiative. We did say that we would fund the benefit part in the same way, and we fund that equally across the province. For us to go in and pay the additional pension cost in two or three school districts
C. Clark: I think the minister's right. We are not going to find agreement on this, so I'll leave it at that.
There's one other area I wanted to touch on, and that's funding pay equity in district 43. They embarked on a pay equity process five years ago, I think, and they concluded it last year. It was a five-year process. They did that with the encouragement of ministry officials, they say. They assumed, because they were being encouraged, that it would be fully funded. That was their understanding from the ministry. Now they've got this five-year process underway, and the ministry's saying: "Oh, sorry, tough luck. We're only funding you for three years." I wonder if the minister can comment on that.
Hon. P. Priddy: That was one of the issues, certainly, that the school district talked with us about as well. Pay equity is, of course, not a ministry initiative but a PSEC initiative, and school districts submit their pay equity plan to PSEC for approval.
What we've said to the school district
[ Page 16338 ]
going through our records, and they're going through theirs. If they can find some documentation that indicates that this ministry encouraged them to do that, then we may be able to have another look at it. We haven't been able to find anything when we've looked.
C. Clark: I'll thank the minister. That wraps up my questions for district 43. I appreciate her keeping me up to date on the status of the funding for pay equity. I'm pleased to know that there might be a little bit of money there for the district if they can come up with the paperwork, so thanks very much.
[1600]
I. Chong: Today I'd like to canvass some issues regarding school district 61, which encompasses greater Victoria, as the minister is most likely well aware. As a quick refresher, last year when I spoke to the minister about some issues in school district 61, we were dealing with the issue of potential closures of four schools, two of which were located in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Thankfully that didn't happen, but I think the unresolved issue of the deficit still exists. This year I understand the board has tried to find $2 million worth of cuts to their budget -- again, dealing with a deficit situation.
I'm wondering if the minister can advise whether her staff has been working with school district 61 in terms of dealing with this. Obviously we need to make some efforts or work on something that produces more stability within our public education system. We cannot see districts throughout the province dealing with deficits year after year. What would the consequences be for this district if it had to carry forward another deficit? What is the ministry doing in this regard, in particular, school district 61?
Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of things, then. I think there is a letter waiting for my signature on approving a two-year deficit retirement plan for the school district. But I would want, I think, to correct the record, if I might -- not correct but put the information as I understand it into the record. Their deficit is $900,000, not $2 million; $2 million is their deficit, plus all those things they want to do but aren't currently doing. That takes them to a total of $2 million. Their actual deficit is $900,000.
I think the challenge the school district has run into -- and it's not dissimilar, I suppose, from other kinds of districts -- is they have funded additional programs through what they believed was anticipated enrolment growth. When the enrolment growth didn't occur and the enrolment flattened out -- and in point of fact, there has been a decrease in enrolment every year for the last three years -- they obviously were not able to fund new programs through anticipated growth. So they found themselves in a position of committing money to programs based on students that they thought might come but weren't actually there, and you couldn't actually count them yet.
As I say, their enrolment has been down every year for the last three years and is down -- not a lot but about 0.4 percent -- this year. Their funding is up 3.3 percent this year. That doesn't mean that it makes it easy, by any means. But they have, I think, created part of their own difficulty.
I think the other thing that happened last year is that they were planning to be able to fund some programs through the closure of two schools. When that did not occur, they did not take the necessary action to be able to find that.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for her response. I am keenly aware of the fact that enrolment has gone down. But the difficulty is that this being the capital region area, this being a city which has demographics that can change year to year, a three-year decline in enrolment can be easily reversed in one full year if we have a change and if our economy starts to boom again. That's a very likely scenario.
However, I am also aware that school district 61 has provided programs that perhaps were not part of the basic core the Ministry of Education might have wanted. However, because they were able to do that in the past, it has made it very difficult to cut back, which is why we're seeing this cutback in the strings program. I would just like to ask the minister what decision if any has been made or what consultations or what communication has occurred between school district 61 and this ministry as to whether or not there will be any efforts to, particularly in that case, save that program.
[1605]
Hon. P. Priddy: We asked the school district to submit a deficit retirement plan. They have done that. It is in my office for approval. I realize they are tough choices. If you've had programs that are richer than other districts, it's even harder to cut those back. I understand that. But that's a local decision about how you manage that budget. So I don't have a plan, as the minister, to go in and rescue either a strings program or another kind of program. That's what they put forward in their deficit retirement plan, and that's a local decision.
I. Chong: I guess this is an issue that will always come back for many districts to deal with. Again, when we talk about the strings program being a program, perhaps we are unfairly categorizing it in that sense, because some would argue, and some parents would argue, that arts and music programs are not considered programs as such. They benefit the children in their learning ability; they benefit the children in their academic achievements. That's been proven in studies. We all know that. It just seems that we can't find some way to incorporate that as part of the basic necessities of our education system. I don't want to belabour that point. Other members, perhaps, have made that point. I know, clearly, they were made last year.
I would like to ask the minister, however
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think we have all of the efficiency advisory team reports with us. Well, just a minute, maybe we do -- or at least a summary. The only thing I do have with me, hon. member, is that
I. Chong: I would appreciate a copy of that information. I don't have all the up-to-date data.
Still on the same question of programs, I guess this is where the big circles are around what is considered extra
[ Page 16339 ]
programs or the richness of a school district or however we want to word it. But I know the ESL programs are in rather severe circumstances in the Vancouver and lower mainland area. You would not generally expect them to be here in Victoria. However, it's been brought to my attention that we do, in fact, have an ESL situation here where there isn't sufficient funding to go towards that. I'm not aware whether the ministry has targeted funding specifically for ESL for various school districts when requests are made to deal with that.
In this particular case, it has arisen as a result of Kosovo refugees. So we're not talking ESL as immigrants, but where the Kosovo refugees were taken in by Canada -- some of whom, which I wasn't aware of, ending up in Victoria. There have been ESL programs that were provided for them, in addition to other ESL students, of course, because they wouldn't have made up the entire class. Now we have a situation where, I understand, because of school district 61's financial and budgetary problems, they cannot fund those ESL programs. So it leaves these people in a state of limbo, I guess, in a state where they can't proceed and catch up to all the other students. I'm wondering whether considerations like that are taken in by the minister and whether targeted funding is available through the minister's contingency fund, which I am sure exists.
[1610]
Hon. P. Priddy: Just two points. One of them is just around the funding, and the member may already have this information. There are 1,029 funded ESL students in the school district. So even though we might think of larger numbers in other places, and we probably do, there are over 1,000 students in the Greater Victoria district who are classified as ESL students, and there's funding of $1.135 million. So if you have a student who is classified as ESL, people receive funding for that student.
Now we can check, but I think that this is correct: where there has been some unprecedented arrival of numbers of students -- which I think has been the case with Kosovo -- we have found some additional dollars, along with the Ministry of Multiculturalism. My staff thinks that we actually did do that with district 61 for Kosovo students. We'd need to check and make sure that that's the case, but that's the recollection that staff have.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. In so checking, I would like some confirmation on that if possible. But I also would ask the minister: in cases like that, is it a one-year funding addition, or is it a three-year or a five-year plan? Particularly because it is unprecedented in claims of needs
Hon. P. Priddy: The funding is a five-year funding formula. It's a bit front-end-loaded in a couple of ways. If they're kindergarten students, they then have full-day kindergarten, because they are one of those groupings of children who would qualify for full-day kindergarten. But it's also front-end-loaded a little bit in terms of the amount per student. So for year one out of the five years, it's $1,230 per student. In years two to five, it's slightly less; it's $1,060. But it's a five-year program. By the way, the average for a student to be successful is about three and a half years, so not everybody stays in for five years, but that's where the cap is.
I. Chong: Further questions on funding issues
I acknowledge that there were additional costs as a result of the agreement-in-principle, the K-to-3 initiative -- which we certainly support -- for students' educational learning abilities. I've heard the previous ministers indicate that moneys have been allocated to deal with that. Some may agree and some may disagree, and I'm not going to get into that debate.
However, I'm still wondering whether additional funding is provided for other costs -- which are not necessarily associated with an agreement, but just other costs -- such as the imposed costs like EI, employment insurance premiums and additional costs for WCB classifications. Those continue to plague some school districts in terms of dealing with their funding. Whether or not that is happening provincewide, I'm not sure. I know it certainly has been an issue that has been raised in this area.
I would like the minister to respond as to whether or not there will be consideration made of that. I'm not sure if WCB has recently again reclassified all the schools, because it's gone through a major reclassification of various jobs associated with running school districts. Whether there is additional funding that takes care of the WCB and the EI
[1615]
Hon. P. Priddy: Any changes to EI, WCB and CPP are fully funded by the government. If there are changes in federal legislation or federal arrangements that impact the budget of the local school district, we cover those provincially as well.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for her answer on that.
I would also like to ask the minister: as a result of the agreement-in-principle, the K-to-3 initiative, I visited perhaps all but two of the elementary schools in the district of Oak Bay-Gordon Head that I represent, meeting with teachers and principals, etc. I know that there has been some difficulty in arranging the class sizes so they work. What I have been hearing from the principals and the teachers is that more flexibility should be provided, because some schools can handle it better, and others couldn't. One particular school, as a result of the K-to-3 initiative, had to create four different split classes: K-to-1, 1-to-2, 2-to-3 and 3-to-4. If they had more flexibility, they could have kept some single grade classes together.
In one particular case, where there were, I think -- I can't remember -- 19 kindergarten students and 28 grade 1 students, they had to find five students to move into the kindergarten, or somewhere around those numbers. It was very difficult, because for each student who was chosen to be with the K-to-1 class, the parents obviously objected. They wanted their students to stay with their fellow classmates. So it created a number of problems, and as I understand it, some principals spent fully the first two weeks doing nothing but moving classes around and also filling out forms -- which is another regulatory problem that we need to deal with, but I won't get into it this time. But in fact, this has happened.
[ Page 16340 ]
My point is that some classes could not adjust, and as a result, grievances have been filed. At last count, I am aware -- and this goes back to last October -- that within two months of school operation, 21 grievances had been filed in school district 61 alone. I don't even know how many other grievances there are throughout the province. Those grievances cost money, which the school boards have to pay for, in terms of legal counsel. Even though they're very minor, they still have to take it out of their budget to pay for that. The other costs are coming from, I guess, the teachers, and they don't have a budget situation to deal with, as we have in school districts.
I'm wondering if the minister is aware of how many grievances were actually filed -- I haven't asked the principals since October -- how many we ended up with and what kinds of costs are recoverable from the ministry when these grievances occur.
[1620]
Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding is that this issue was raised and that there was a meeting held late last year with BCTF, BCPSEA, the ministry and school district 61 about this particular issue, trying to look at if indeed there were any inequities and what any of those partners could do to try to alleviate that. I'll come back to that in a moment, member.
I have no idea how many grievances may have been filed with each school district. What I am aware of is that there's no outstanding arbitration on class size that we're aware of provincially. But I couldn't tell you how many might have been filed in every school district. I suppose it's possible to find that out, but I don't think that's
One of the things that I think became apparent in the discussion with district 61 around class size is that there was a decision made -- and by the way, school districts have every right to make the decisions they believe are best -- to offer French immersion. They offered it to very, very small classes of ten, 11 and 12 students. Well, the funding formula doesn't cover a teacher for 12 students. Therefore by making that choice and having a full-time teacher for 12 students, you're obviously going to put budget pressures in other places. My staff tells me, though, that at the end of the day of that meeting that all the partners were at, there was a general agreement that there were not inequities as related to this particular issue.
I. Chong: I am aware of one school in particular that has French immersion. The other nine schools that I visited did not bring up the issue of French immersion. It was strictly the numbers game that they were having a problem with.
I don't need the minister to look into the details of how many grievances there are. I was just curious whether she was aware that these things are occurring and that they put an additional financial burden on the budget. When these kinds of grievances occur
Some teachers, in fact, who are teaching say: "It's not a problem to go over the limit, although we're trying our best to be at the maximum allowable as per the agreement." As I say, the difficulty comes because I leave it up to the teachers, the parents, the school district to deal with it by whatever means they can.
The difficulty is that when they are grieved, there are some associated costs. I'm certain that these cases have all been dismissed by now, because it was in October when I met with a number of these teachers. The principals actually indicated to me that in the event that the grievance is successful, they will just realign the classes in January, which causes disruption to students -- something which I don't think any of us would want to see. By whatever means, I am sure that sometimes the issue resolves itself by January because we have a student moving out of the district, or what we have is a new problem created when a student moves into the district and goes to that particular school.
In any event, grievances are filed, and they are costly. My question to the minister was whether there was financial reimbursement or recovery from the minister to deal with grievances, because this has nothing to do with the operation of a school district.
[B. Goodacre in the chair.]
Hon. P. Priddy: Two points. One of them is that a board can submit costs around grievances to BCPSEA. If BCPSEA believes that that grievance has a provincial effect or impact or relevance, if you will, in the province, then they may very well agree to cover that. I would say, though, that grievances around class size and so on were certainly around before we had the AIP or the provincial collective agreement that the member refers to. This is not something that has occurred only as a result of that. We've had these kinds of issues for a long time.
[1625]
I. Chong: No doubt there have been grievances before, but a whole new range of grievances have occurred as a result. With the financial difficulties many school districts are dealing with now, they are not looking to have additional costs to have to deal with. I'll leave that with the minister.
I would also like to ask: in the area of school curriculum, when a new curriculum or a revision to curriculum is added, does the ministry look at the requirements to fulfil that curriculum? What I'm referring to in particular is textbooks. When I visited the secondary high schools in my area last year, I wouldn't say the complaint but the concern that I heard from teachers was that as a result of a new mathematics or a new science course offered or asked to be implemented through the curriculum, the difficulty is that there are no textbooks or that there is no money to buy textbooks to properly implement that new curriculum or new course.
When the ministry brings in a new course or curriculum, are the costs identified? Are those costs therefore provided to the school districts to ensure that the teachers have the tools to teach the students the new curriculum that the Ministry of Education is wanting?
Hon. P. Priddy: Just as a point of information, we put out about $34.5 million in learning resources each year. There was a $6.7 million increase this year. So when new curricula are implemented, there is not a specific dollar amount attached to the new curriculum or the curriculum implementation. What we do, however, is try to give school districts enough notice
[ Page 16341 ]
around new curriculum so that when they're planning their acquisition of new learning resources, they're able to do that -- respond to that curriculum.
Interestingly enough, when we had a look provincially the last time -- because the learning resources money is in a trust account -- we found that about 50 percent of that money remained in the trust account and was not spent. In school district 61 there was $267,000 left unspent in the learning resource account. I don't know why
The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes. We'll be back here in exactly ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.
[B. Goodacre in the chair.]
I. Chong: I thank the minister for her response regarding the learning resources fund. Just a quick clarification, perhaps: are these learning resources trust funds set up for every district, or is it a large pot? I see the minister nodding her head, but I see the deputy shaking
Interjections.
I. Chong: A bit of confusion there -- different body language, different answers. So every district has its own learning resource fund. I appreciate that; I wasn't aware, and I will look into that.
My last question refers to a matter that was brought to my attention by a young student. We found out the answer from the school board, and it deals with the School Act. It has to do with the issue of clubs in schools. Regardless of what form of club, my understanding is that before a club can be started in a school, especially an after-school club, there has to be a teacher sponsor, as a result of the School Act. I can understand the necessity for ensuring that the classroom is used for the purpose that it was designed to be used for.
In this particular, case a number of students just wanted to get together and have meetings once a week, discuss the issues that were relevant to them and allow others to participate if they wished to. They didn't need a school teacher to participate. But they were restricted from doing so. At the time no school teacher was willing to sponsor that club because of restrictions on their time. Secondly, it wasn't that interesting to any of the teachers involved.
[1640]
The students found themselves in quite a dilemma, and they were asking me whether I thought the School Act provision was fair. So the question I have for the minister is whether there are exceptions that are made and whether a parent could perhaps agree to be, I guess, a supervisor of a club that students themselves want to initiate. You don't seem to need to have teachers necessarily sponsoring clubs like a reading club or a debating club. If students want to get together in a classroom and form a debating team, and then they want to take it on the road and challenge other schools, there doesn't seem to be a problem with that.
If the minister needs to know the nature of this club, I'm surely willing to disclose it. But at this point, half a dozen students got together, and they wanted to have a club. It didn't require activity; it didn't require anything but the use of a schoolroom and the desks that were there.
Hon. P. Priddy: The information I have says that the school indicates that it's the principal who's in charge. I don't know about the circumstances of this one. I'm a bit puzzled that, if students had an interest, people would not be able to make some accommodation to meet these students' needs. In terms of whether a parent could do it, well, there certainly are circumstances in which parents do do that kind of activity in a school. There has been lots of discussion about whether it is replacing somebody, etc. But I'm aware of clubs that have parents who are the support persons. It's nominally been approved by the principal, but there are parents actually involved in doing weekly activity. But back to the question of the act. This one says it's the principal who makes those decisions.
I. Chong: I'll have a closer look at that section of the act, because that's not how I had read it. I received a copy of the act and interpreted it, and it requires that there be a school staff person involved.
Just for the record, I will tell the minister that it was a young gentleman who wanted to start up a bible-reading class -- very innocuous. A number of his friends wanted to meet together, read and interpret sections on their own without adult involvement necessarily. As I say, it made it very, very difficult when they were told that they weren't permitted to do this in the high school, and it was the most logical place because they were all there.
I thank the minister for a response, and I will take a look at that section.
Hon. P. Priddy: And we'll check it out too.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for her efforts to look into that.
R. Thorpe: The minister is reported to have made the following comments recently in the Peachland Signal: "No child should be walking on a road being used by logging trucks
Hon. P. Priddy: I don't remember stating it exactly that way, but I do recall the conversation with the reporter, and it was around the transportation review. What I said to the reporter was that while the transportation review did not look at walk limits, it looked at issues of safety. I gave an example of safety issues that people are concerned about, with children walking on long logging roads where you've got logging trucks going by at a fairly rapid speed. People might consider it to be a safety issue for students.
[1645]
The follow-up that I intend for this, and I reported that to the reporter as well, is that as a result of the transportation review -- I don't have the final copy, but we're going ahead with this anyway -- there will be two groups established, if you will. One is a transportation committee, which will have representation from all the education partners -- parents, school districts and so on. Secondly, there will be a group of
[ Page 16342 ]
people to look very specifically at the report and the safety issues. They will be safety experts, so it would be someone from ICBC and somebody from the RCMP who understands the issues around dangerous roads or the kinds of trucks you might find on roads in different parts of this province. Sorry -- ICBC, RCMP and a safety expert, if I recall. So those two things are a part of what I intend as the follow-up to that.
R. Thorpe: Back to the quote that I have in front of me, "No child should be walking on a road being used by a logging truck," I am sure the context of the quote is reasonably close. Whether it's exact, as the minister is saying, I don't know; I'm just reading it.
What is the minister's intention? Assuming that these two committees agree with the minister that children should not be walking on roads that are used by logging trucks and are unsafe for young people to walk along, what is your intention?
Hon. P. Priddy: I would begin my comments by saying that I don't think that's the exact quote that I said: "No child should walk on a logging road." That aside, the context is that I know there are safety concerns on logging roads. The intent would be that with the work of the RCMP, ICBC and a safety expert, there would be objective criteria set up that looked at safety issues around transportation or walking circumstances for children, and when necessary, variances could be made.
R. Thorpe: What deadline is the minister putting in place for these reports to be completed?
Hon. P. Priddy: Before I stated that, I wanted to check. The terms of reference, as I think I said earlier to one of the other members, is currently being worked on. We would expect to have these committees working over the course of the summer. Whether they would have absolute recommendations for the first day of school, I'm not certain. But the intention would be to have recommendations from this committee as early in September as we could. Summers are harder, but that's the time that we're in. We do want to make sure that we provide enough time for people to do any consultation that is necessary. But our intent would be for the work to happen over the summer and be ready for early fall.
R. Thorpe: Until the minister's last few words I was encouraged. Let me just get a little clarification here. Fall -- is the intention to have something ready and in place, depending on whatever the outcomes are, to be actionable when the students start back to school?
Hon. P. Priddy: It would be easy to say, "Yes, absolutely," but I don't think I can do that. There is a fair bit of work to be done. I'm sorry I said fall, if that was misleading -- as early in September as they can. For me to promise it would be ready and already acted on by the first day of school I don't think is a promise I could or should make.
R. Thorpe: I get a little confused, and I get very, very concerned. Children are our most precious asset. Today is June 7. School will start some time in early September. That's almost three months. I am sure, if you're looking for people from the community -- the active parents, the PAC, whatever -- that they're going to put their priority on their children. Surely we could put some pressure on those who work for ICBC or some of the other governments, if we believe our children are as precious as some believe. I happen to believe it should be a top priority. In fact, in this very article the minister's comments are that this committee is a top priority.
[1650]
Hon. Chair, I think that the children of British Columbia deserve a commitment. Whatever has to be done should be done to get the reports ready. Whatever corrective action has to be in place for the first day of school, that commitment should be made, or in fact our students aren't our number one priority. Can the minister please address that?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think nobody's going to argue with anyone that children are not a first priority, and this review has been a priority. It isn't even printed yet, and as I've already said I'm drafting terms of reference for a committee and selecting people to do some of that work.
But it does take a little bit of time, because the way the ministry committee works is that you ask education partners. So BCCPAC, the parent group, will have to appoint someone, as will all the other education partners. We will put as much pressure on as we can to get those organizations to appoint people, to make sure that those people have the summer free, that people are able to do that work. School districts receive their transportation funding based on a formula, but if a school district actually thinks that children are in danger, then they have a responsibility to make those changes without waiting for a provincial review.
R. Thorpe: When the minister says that the school district has a responsibility to take those actions, does that also mean that the ministry and the province have a responsibility to take the action to provide the funding to make sure that those school children do not have to walk down roads used by logging trucks and that transportation dollars are there to make sure that those students get to school safely?
Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that one of the things that the report indicated is that they thought there was probably enough money in the system that could be used differently. This particular school district had a $400,000 surplus last year that they certainly could have used to provide transportation for children they thought were at risk.
R. Thorpe: Let's not look backwards; let's look forward, because estimates are about moving forward. Now, let's assume they don't have a surplus. Are the children and the safety of the children only a priority to the provincial government if the district has a surplus? Or are they a priority if there is a deficit or if there is no money for transportation? Is it then a priority, and will the minister provide that funding?
Hon. P. Priddy: Children's safety is not a priority only in school districts that have a surplus. My example was simply that this school district could have chosen to take a particular action and chose not to and have a surplus. I just thought it was puzzling that they would not choose to spend it on that.
The results of the transportation review said that people believed that there was enough money in the system but that the regulations about how those dollars were used in assessing the safety of transportation for children -- or walking
[ Page 16343 ]
circumstances for children -- needed improvement in terms of using some objective criteria to do that. It is a priority, regardless, but the external consulting company -- it wasn't us -- who did the transportation review did not say it was an issue of more money; it's how the money was being used.
R. Thorpe: Well, hon. Chair, I seem to be having difficulty getting a straight answer here. Perhaps it's the way I'm asking the question. I'll try to be a little clearer.
I'm sure staff is well aware that the parents in this area have been concerned for some time. This is not a new issue. Parents are very, very concerned. People in the municipality are very, very concerned. School district directors are very concerned. My question is simply this: will the ministry provide the necessary funding to ensure that young students that have had to and currently do have to walk down roads that are used by logging trucks
[1655]
Hon. P. Priddy: It is the recommendation of the transportation review that there is indeed enough money already in the system for transportation to be able to address transportation needs for students. However, in terms of some of the circumstances in which children find themselves walking, there may need to be a very different allocation of those transportation funds. Perhaps boards that transport students they shouldn't be transporting or transport children cross-boundary just because parents want their children to go to a different school that isn't their catchment -- maybe boards have to look at some of those things as well.
It's not as simple as yes or no, when the recommendation of the external company consulting group was that there is enough money but that it needs to be used differently. What this group will do is look at how those dollars that we are told are sufficient can best be used to ensure that students are safe.
R. Thorpe: We're talking about fiscal year 2000-2001 in these estimates, so let us take ourselves to the first Tuesday after Labour Day, when the children are going back to school. Let's think of the students who have to walk down Princeton Avenue in Peachland. Logging trucks go up; logging trucks come down. There are no sidewalks; there's no place for them to walk.
Let's just say this. If busing is not provided by the district, is the minister going to tell the residents of Peachland, the students in Peachland, that it's the district's responsibility and that we have a one-size-fits-all style of government out of Victoria, or does the ministry have any flexibility to address the needs of the children and the parents in Peachland?
Hon. P. Priddy: The school board in that area does not need my permission or the ministry's permission. If they think children walking down Princeton are unsafe, they don't need my permission or the ministry staff's permission to make sure that those children are transported. It is not one-size-fits-all. If it was one-size-fits-all, I wouldn't bother having the RCMP and ICBC look at what those variables are around the province. So it's not one-size-fits-all. If this school district truly believes that those children are that at risk, then they have a responsibility to transport them.
R. Thorpe: With respect to other major routes that have logging trucks and heavy traffic use, does the ministry have a policy or position with respect to crossing guards?
Hon. P. Priddy: I see somebody looking something up, so I don't know if I have to redo my answer. My understanding is that we do not have a policy on crossing guards, and those decisions are made locally.
R. Thorpe: Is there any funding provided by the provincial government to districts that have unique situations or dangerous situations where logging trucks and other major vehicles are travelling the highways and students have to walk to school? Do you have any kind of unique funding mechanism to help those districts that find themselves in those situations?
[1700]
Hon. P. Priddy: No, at this time we do not, although there are existing programs that school districts have used in order to be able to access resources to do that, like the adult crossing guard program, which is supported by local law enforcement agencies, and the safe crossing program, which is part of an ICBC initiative.
R. Thorpe: With respect to funding for unique transportation situations, as perhaps the minister is well aware, there are 75 ridings. Not very many of them are the same; there are many different situations. What kind of flexibility is in the current funding, based on the walk-limit guidelines? Do individual districts have the ability, based on terrain and road networks, etc., to bring forward detailed plans on the uniqueness of their districts, and therefore, after it's been substantiated, receive the funding for the flexibility that's required in the various districts? Or, again, is it just one-size-fits-all for all British Columbians?
Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One is just a prelude statement, and then a more direct answer. The funding formula for transportation is a way of assessing how much money goes to the school district for transportation. They then use it as they see fit. We don't have a way that says that you have to use it with this bus, on this route, etc. They use it in the way that works best for them. With the review and the safety experts I've spoken of, if there are school districts where people find that based on safety criteria, children are at risk, then we would work to find additional resources to match those particular needs in that district.
R. Thorpe: I thank the minister for that comment. Again, I would just like to get on the record and have the minister comment. If I understood her earlier comments, the minister is going to do everything possible to ensure that the review committees have all of their work done, so that the students and the parents of those students can have some comfort that things will be ready, when school starts back in September, with respect to the Peachland situation.
Hon. P. Priddy: I will do everything I am able to do to say to the people on the committee, "This is a high priority; it's
[ Page 16344 ]
about children's safety," and to pressure or encourage them to do their work as quickly as possible. If that means more meetings than people would normally need on a committee, that's fine. Anything I can do personally as the minister, or that the ministry staff can do, to ensure that people are aware of how important this is, how high a priority it is and how urgent it is for them to finish their work, I will do.
R. Thorpe: You know, sometimes people don't think that members of this Legislature work together on behalf of all the constituents of British Columbia. I'd like to say, as the member responsible for Okanagan-Penticton, which Peachland is in, I am prepared to do whatever I can do, working together with the minister and the staff, to make sure that the solutions are in place for back-to-school in September.
L. Stephens: I have just a few questions dealing with Langley school district 35. First, I want to say that we were very much appreciative of the capital money that we received. It has met our needs; I have to say that. I don't know how many other school districts around the province can say that, but it has certainly been adequate for us. I want to say to the minister that we do appreciate that.
The operating budget was a little different. We did manage, and fortunately it was not to the expense of the programs in the school. So we're happy for that.
There are some issues, though, that are of big concern to us. One of them is Bill 14, the WCB Amendment Act. I think that's the one that a number of people have talked about. My district would like to know whether or not the costs that will be incurred by the school districts to implement the Bill 14 initiative will be covered. Will they receive those funds from the province to cover their costs?
[1705]
Hon. P. Priddy: There are two parts to this. The WCB rate increases are fully funded by the province to the district. As it relates to the committees and the requirement around committees, we've asked school districts to provide for us an estimate of what those incremental costs might be. We'll have that discussion with them when we've had the information about seeing what we can do about those.
L. Stephens: Well, I'm sure this will be good news to the school board. They were particularly concerned about the committees and the in-service costs that they were going to have to incur to run the workshops and all of those other kinds of things. Is there a deadline when these estimates have to be into the ministry? Is this a time-sensitive arrangement or
Hon. P. Priddy: We've been working through superintendents and secretary-treasurers in order to do this piece of work. We start with the understanding that all districts would be complying with the old rules around committees -- which may not necessarily be the case, but we begin with that understanding -- and by the end of June, we'd like to see the information on incremental costs.
L. Stephens: I will relay this and see if, in fact, my district has complied, and I'll try and move that process along as well. A number of members have talked about the agreement-in-committee. I'm not going to go through that again but will simply say and put on the record that our district, also, is concerned about the inflexibility of the agreement-in-committee and what it means to the class sizes and so on and so forth. A number of members have addressed that, and I just simply want to register that we have a concern about it as well.
The early intervention programs. Perhaps the minister could talk about some of these programs like reading recovery, school-ready initiatives and so on that are happening in a number of the school districts. Ours is paying quite a bit of attention to trying to make children's school experience as successful as possible, and they're trying to begin at a much earlier age. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about the early intervention programs and what might be available to districts in that regard.
[1710]
Hon. P. Priddy: Let me begin by saying that the early intervention program that Langley has done around literacy is a very good one. People actually talk about that one, so I just wanted to acknowledge that, if I could. Most of the early intervention initiatives that I'm aware of and that are taking place are taking place because that's how the school district has organized their resources, not because there's
So four things, perhaps. One of them is we have a new document on primary programs, which talks about the best practices around early intervention and what works. Teachers and, I think, trustees want to see very specifically what are good practices and what are the programs that have worked. That document is ready.
The performance standards, which we've talked about and which teachers are very excited about and working with parents on
The other thing that we are doing
This is very early on, but we're looking at something that might help us look at the transition. Preschool-to-school is kind of one of those really early transitions. What is it that makes a really successful transition for children? There are some of those best-practice initiatives around. If I had money -- which I don't -- I'd give it to somebody else who has to do with children under five so that we'd even have to do less at five.
[ Page 16345 ]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
L. Stephens: This is something that our district is looking at as well -- the preschool group.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I read it.
L. Stephens: How do we provide the kinds of services to make sure that those preschoolers are school-ready when they get to grade 1? That means there are less services that need to happen as they get into the higher grades? I'm happy to hear that the minister is looking at trying to come up with some way of providing those kinds of initiatives that would benefit all the kids. I'm very happy about that.
A couple of other items. For the special needs kids, the wait-lists for the assessments through the schools is very long. It certainly is in our area. Again, we're trying to find the earliest point of entry for whatever needs to be done for kids, especially the special needs ones. I wonder if the minister could comment on how the ministry plans to reduce those wait-lists for audiology or learning assessments. Is there something in the wind being planned for that?
[1715]
Hon. P. Priddy: I guess two pieces. One of the recommendations in the special education review that, as I said earlier, is just now coming out of Queen's Printer, I hope, is that
If you started your assessment with those children that have the most critical needs, particularly with children who have sight impairments, etc
L. Stephens: I agree with the minister that, yes, if we did have some more early-intervention programs, we could reduce the level of needs as the children progress through the grades. We don't have that at this point in time, so we have to deal with those children who do need to have these assessments done in a timely way. I'm sure the minister knows that if it's not done in a timely way, it just means that in the higher grades, they fall further and further behind or have more difficulties. It just compounds all of the issues that many of these children have. In the classroom, many of the teachers don't have time; they don't have enough aides in the classroom.
Where I agree with the minister that, yes, there are perhaps some more things that can be done in the classroom, I nevertheless think there does need to be more attention paid to those kinds of services, professional services, that are required to do the kinds of assessments many of the children in classrooms today need. That's around the special, even the mentally handicapped, children that are in the classrooms today.
I'd like to see the minister give me a little bit more comfort around how her ministry plans to deal with these really serious issues and really try and reduce these wait-lists. Whether it's through a memorandum of understanding or protocols with the Ministry of Health -- however that's able to be done -- I would like to hear some possible suggestions that the minister might have to address these issues.
Hon. P. Priddy: I share the member's concern, and I think the member knows that. We've probably worked together for long enough to have similar views on a variety of issues.
We are working with the Ministry of Health around protocols, to try and get protocols around some testing. There are some challenges with that, as well, in terms of which ministry
[1720]
The member may know this; I never know if I'm giving people information they already have. This may not sound like very much, but we fund about $20.72 for identification for every student. Of course, not every student needs assessment, so that money compiles and is used for those students that particularly need that. District 35 last year -- '99-2000 -- got $425,254 for assessment and planning and used less than that. They used about $412,000. I don't know whether they felt that they had done assessments on those students who were the most critical; I'm not sure. But they did spend about $15,000 or $20,000 less than they got.
L. Stephens: I have no idea why they left $15,000 in their account. I'm sure the minister doesn't either. That's something that the school districts perhaps need to keep a closer eye on. If they've got any money left
One final issue is the BCPSEA fee increase that school districts are being asked to pay. It's about 40 percent for us. The membership fee for 2000-2001 is going to $53,338 from $38,111. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. My understanding is that the minister used to cost-share 50-50 with BCPSEA. Is that no longer the case? And what is happening around these fee increases? Forty percent is a big jump.
Hon. P. Priddy: There's just one figure that I've asked staff to check. But it is correct; we no longer fund 50 percent of BCPSEA. The interesting piece about this one was that the school districts know, as do BCPSEA, that we no longer fund
[ Page 16346 ]
50 percent of that, and yet, when the motion went to the annual general meeting to raise the fees, it passed. I'm not sure it if was unanimous, but it passed, certainly with a significant majority. It's interesting that they would do that knowing ahead of time that the ministry was not going to fund 50 percent.One of the challenges of this
I can tell you that we fund over $1 million in the province, but I'm not sure of the percentage that we currently fund. But it's correct; it is no longer 50 percent. Sorry -- it's 43 percent.
L. Stephens: Well, I understand the vote was 27 to 22. So it wasn't significant; it looks like it was pretty much a dead heat there.
So the ministry is going to be funding 43 percent for the BCPSEA? I think that's what the minister said -- 43 percent?
Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct; that's what it works out to.
[1725]
L. Stephens: That's all the questions that I have, and I thank the minister for her responses and thank the staff for their time as well.
P. Nettleton: I do have a couple of questions for the minister. As you know, hon. Chair, the Ministry of Education provides provincial grants for most students enrolled in school districts throughout the province. And the ministry reduces school district provincial grants for the number of on-reserve, status aboriginal FTE students who are either directly funded or covered under local education agreements. School boards are then expected to recover these funds from the aboriginal bands.
Boards across the province, however, continue to be unsuccessful in their attempts to recover these funds or payments. Our delay is causing significant financial hardships for various boards. Boards are having to incur both legal costs, as you might imagine, to try and collect these funds and interest charges as a result of these outstanding debts.
Both the Ministry of Education and the Department of Indian Affairs have been notified of these proceedings and the potential implications of these claims. Boards do not feel the ministry is providing the attention or support necessary to help resolve this issue for school districts. And the ministry, in the boards' view at least, has placed school districts in an untenable situation by automatically reducing the grants to school districts for status, on-reserve aboriginal students, while, meanwhile, the ministry continues to require boards to provide educational services to these students for which there is, in practical terms, no funding available to the boards.
I have two questions for the minister. The first would be: how many millions of dollars are owing to school districts throughout the province of British Columbia from aboriginal bands for education of aboriginal students in public schools?
Hon. P. Priddy: The total outstanding, which doesn't mean, because this is all of the school districts
P. Nettleton: That's all very well and good, if in fact the ministry and minister are able to come to some kind of an agreement with the feds. I know that reaching agreements with the feds has been something of a challenge in a number of areas throughout various ministries. So I would wish the minister every success in that endeavour, given what is at stake.
[1730]
But I would ask the minister, with respect to the moneys that are due and owing at the present time -- that is, in a retroactive sense -- what the ministry is prepared to do for those school districts that find themselves presently embroiled in lawsuits, embroiled in ongoing disputes with various bands, particularly in the region where I live. I'm thinking of the Vanderhoof-Burns Lake area and the school district there, which is headquartered in Vanderhoof, a community which I represent. I know that they are presently embroiled in litigation involving a substantial amount of money.
Again, my question is: what is the ministry going to do to support school districts that have been caught in this catch-22? The aboriginal bands have not paid the school districts the money received from the federal government, yet the province has clawed back the funding from the school districts for these students, and students, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, suffer. As I say, while I'm sure school districts will applaud the ministry's efforts in terms of reaching some kind of an agreement with the feds, nevertheless there are some issues that need to be addressed by the ministry on behalf of not only the constituents that I represent but school districts throughout the province.
Hon. P. Priddy: In adding to my previous comments about the reconciliation of the numbers and then withholding payment that would come to us and then back to the school boards in terms of money owed -- which would then address the issue of retroactivity -- we've had very good cooperation. We did this last year; it was successful. I realize that in lots of ministries there are real challenges around aboriginal issues, federal funding and so on. But we've had very good cooperation. As I say, it was successful last year. So I have every reason to believe that it will be and that money will be directed to the school districts. I realize it is a problem in terms of being asked to provide ongoing education and not having those dollars coming in. So I expect that we will be able to resolve this as we did last year.
The other thing that we're doing rather than litigation -- which is very expensive -- is we are working with DIAND to
[ Page 16347 ]
provide mediation when necessary, if we can do that as opposed to people going directly to litigation. And the funding is provided for that mediation; we provide the funding for the mediation.
P. Nettleton: Just as a matter of clarification: what the minister is saying, as I understand it, is that in fact the agreement that they anticipate reaching with the feds will include some provision in terms of retroactively addressing the moneys that are presently owed to the school districts. Is that the case?
Hon. P. Priddy: Absolutely, with the exception
P. Nettleton: Perhaps the minister could then
Hon. P. Priddy: The litigation is the Nechako Lakes school district. Beyond that, because it's in litigation, I can't comment.
[1735]
P. Nettleton: What the minister seems to be saying is that, in fact, because the Nechako Lakes district is in litigation -- which is the district to which I had referred, involving communities like Vanderhoof, Burns Lake and so forth -- this potential agreement with the feds will have no impact on them in terms of moneys presently owed and possibly moneys owed at some point in the future. It's certainly not clear in my mind why it is that there could not be some resolution of this litigation, or some effort made by the ministry on behalf of the Nechako Lakes district to somehow conclude the present litigation, given that the Nechako Lakes district finds itself embroiled in this litigation precisely because of the problems that I've outlined which stem from the ministry's holdback of moneys.
Hon. P. Priddy: We do expect that there will be full resolution, as well, with this district. But it's difficult
P. Nettleton: I'm certainly not convinced that this is a satisfactory response -- that is, in terms of the constituents, the students and so forth in the Nechako Lakes district. And I'm almost certain that it's not going to satisfy the school board in that district. But perhaps at least I could offer the minister my commitment to work together with the ministry on behalf of the school district, in terms of relaying some of their concerns and also perhaps proposing some means of addressing some of their concerns. I mean, my appearance here today is not primarily to criticize the minister or the ministry. It really isn't.
Hon. P. Priddy: I didn't take it that way.
P. Nettleton: No, it's to
The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the minister, I just caution the members of the committee and the minister around the rule of sub judice. I know we've had some debate in the chambers around that issue. Probably what I should say a lot clearer is that the Chair is listening very carefully to see how far we tread into discussing a court case in committee. So with that caution, or with that recognition, I bid the members to continue.
A Voice: You've been watching too many Perry Mason movies.
Hon. P. Priddy: I actually like "Perry Mason," and it's not on anymore. Thank you, hon. Chair, to the member. And by the way, I do appreciate your comments, and I appreciate your asking us to heed that.
I just wanted to check my notes for something. While we do hope and believe that in the end we will have a resolution, the other reason -- other than being named third party -- for not being able to support the board is that it's actually the board that named us third party. In doing that, they would know that our hands were tied, because they named us as a third party in being able to then take any other action.
G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Hogg: Today the government is honouring a number of its public service employees through exemplary service awards. One of those is a former colleague of mine who is in the precincts, and I hope and trust that the House will make Mr. Angus Jim MacIsaac welcome and congratulate him on his long service to this province.
[1740]
J. Dalton: I came in with four items, but I'm going to add two quick ones to the list as follow-ups to two points that other members had raised.
Firstly, the minister will remember some discussion when we started off the estimates about the closure of, potentially, five Cariboo schools, only two of which will actually be closed. I've noted from some local coverage up in the Williams Lake area that Riske Creek Elementary, which will remain open, is actually going to, I believe, be operated by the local Indian band. My question to the minister, then, would be: Would that mean, then, that the school would be operated with federal money, and not provincial?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the information is out a bit ahead of itself. In the information submitted to us by that school board, they stated that the two aboriginal bands, Williams Lake band and Toosey band, were interested in taking over the schools. That is the stage at which that is. There's nothing beyond that. My deputy has attempted to make contact with representatives from both aboriginal bands to pursue this discussion. If those negotiations were successfully completed,
[ Page 16348 ]
which would not be for this fall, then it would be federal dollars that operated those schools. But it's early days on this one.
J. Dalton: That's useful to know, and I'll continue to track that. Another is a follow-up. The member for Langley raised the issue of BCPSEA's fees going up. It's reported in a May 5 article in the Vancouver Sun that the ministry's contribution is $1.1 million out of a $3.2 million budget. If those figures are accurate, then the minister's response of 43 percent actually should be 34 percent. Perhaps it's just a transposition of the two numbers. Is that correct information, as reported in the Vancouver Sun?
[Interruption.]
The Chair: Members, if we could entertain a motion to rise, report progress, and seek leave to sit
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Chair. I move that Committee A rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada